April 24, 2009 8:24 PM

Gore: Emission Cuts Would Restore America

(CBS/AP)  Former Vice President Al Gore called a House proposal to curb greenhouses gases blamed for global warming one of the most important bills ever in Congress.

Gore, who won a Nobel Prize for his work on global warming, testified Friday before a House panel. In testimony prepared for delivery, Gore said the legislation will simultaneously solve the problems of climate change, the economy and national security.

The former vice president described the bill as "one of the most important pieces of legislation ever introduced in the Congress," and said it has the moral equivalence of the post-World War II Marshall Plan and civil rights legislation in the 1960s.

He predicted passing it would "restore America's leadership in the world and begin, at long last, to solve the climate crisis."

Gore served in the House from 1977-85 and was a Tennessee Senator from 1985-93 before becoming Vice President.

Gore will urge the House panel to make sure the bill includes provisions to protect those people who will unfairly face hardship, such as workers in energy-intensive industries who could lose their jobs.

Gore's backing comes after three days of hearings about a massive energy legislation during which advocates on the issue debates the bill's merits.

The House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment has been holding hearings on the American Clean Energy and Security Act which, its backers say, will promote renewable sources of energy and clean electric vehicles while improving electricity transmission; increase energy efficiency; place limits on emissions of pollutants that contribute to global warming; and protect U.S. consumers and industry during the transition to a "clean energy" economy.

Also appearing before the House panel on Friday are former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Virginia Sen. John Warner. All have played leading roles in the issue of climate change - sometimes on opposite sides of the debate.

Gore, perhaps the most outspoken public figure on climate change, will once again tell Congress that legislation is needed now to avert the dire consequences of climate change - among them wildfires, droughts and storms.

He has long blamed the appetite for fossil fuels like oil and coal for the planet's warming. In January he called on Congress to pass legislation to limit greenhouse gases this year despite a faltering economy.

Gore, who starred in an Oscar-winning documentary about global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth," won a Nobel Peace Prize for his advocacy.

Gingrich, who led the Republican-dominated House from 1995-1999, thinks conservatives should play a role in crafting climate and energy policy, but he is against putting a price on global-warming pollution, one of the mechanisms of the legislation which in effect makes it less costly for industry if they pollute less.

Gingrich last year appeared in a commercial sitting alongside House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., that was paid for by Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection. In it he says that while he doesn't always see eye-to-eye with Pelosi, "we do agree our country must take action to address climate change."

In his prepared opening statement, Gingrich said the bill would not reward innovation in developing new sources of energy, in order to wean the country off of imported fossil fuels. Instead, the former Speaker said, "This bill punishes Americans into living lives that the government wants them to live."

Gingrich said that the energy crisis "was and is purely politician-driven," and warned that if America's domestic energy sources are not opened up further for exploitation, "this bill guarantees that we will remain reliant upon OPEC if we want to continue to drive cars, heat our homes, and run our appliances."

Gingrich's statement also made many reference to a tax, which is not in the legislation, saying that the bill's cap-and-trade provisions (whereby industries can buy and sell allowable limits on carbon emissions, so that those polluting less might profit) amount to an "energy tax" that will cost companies and consumers.

The tax-exempt political organization Gingrich heads, American Solutions for Winning the Future, has been advocating against such a cap-and-trade measure. Last summer, Gingrich's organization received $250,000 from Peabody Energy, the world's largest private-sector coal company, according to IRS documents.

Gingrich was added to the subcommittee's lineup late Thursday at the request of Republicans.

Warner, a Republican, has been a strong advocate for mandatory action to reduce greenhouse gases. He watched last summer as a GOP filibuster in the Senate killed chances for his bill to limit greenhouse gases. The debate then focused on bitter disagreement over the expected economic costs, and similar arguments have been made this week.

Warner will argue that the proposed bill should do more to address national security and that if it did it would garner more public support.

The draft bill calls for a 20-percent reduction from 2005 levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, and 83 percent by mid-century. It also would require utilities to produce a quarter of their electricity from renewable sources by 2025.

This time around, there is a larger Democratic majority and a president who supports legislation to curb global warming.

Among the speakers appearing later today to debate elements of the bill are representatives of auto manufacturers, home builders, the petrochemical industry, and advocates from the Union of Concerned Scientists, Natural Resources Defense Council, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.


For more info:
  • Summary of American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (pdf)
  • Al Gore's opening testimony (pdf)
  • Newt Gingrich's opening testimony
  • © 2009 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
    Add a Comment See all 268 Comments
    by notjunior May 5, 2009 9:38 PM EDT
    Let's see, global warming has been occurring since the Ice Ages. Those mammoths and cave men were giving off too much hot air and burned a hole in the atmosphere. Straighten the Mississippi River, drain the wet lands, build on bottom land. I think a closer look will show Dan Brown has the right idea: Give us a monumental problem so the politicians can do their thing. What a bunch... Why does this "science" get any air time?
    Reply to this comment
    by octavianfdlr April 27, 2009 1:50 PM EDT
    Gore: Emission Cuts Would Restore America....
    ...to Third World Status! But that is the point of the Global Economic Climate Change ("Climate Change" is the new buzz phrase for "Global Warming") that Al Gore received a Nobel for working on.
    Reply to this comment
    by whitemale08 April 27, 2009 7:50 AM EDT
    that......when I pray to the Lord, I ask Him about rush, but mainly He asks me about what I've been doing about life here on Earth......I feel small when I say... not enough...WM08 keep on surfing
    Posted by chimneyfish at 10:41 PM : Apr 26, 2009 --

    Good debate, but here's the bottom line, if I had to choose cloning my grandmother or the manatees, I'd say the manatees. One thing I will agree with Malthusians, and that is we are living in unsustainable periods but we are smart enough to keep our species, the human species alive.

    And yes I'm from Florida, I lived in Pembroke Pinses Florida for most of my life.
    Reply to this comment
    by whitemale08 April 26, 2009 11:48 PM EDT
    Cliffs are sliding into the sea, beaches are disappearing, dunes that protect forests, towns and roads are in danger, and the tourism trade is in jeopardy, local experts said.

    http://news.yahoo.com
    Posted by evilbusheviks at 3:59 PM : Apr 26, 2009 --

    I remember when I was 10 years old and we took a field trip to the everglades and the guide told us that the Florida coast would eventually erode away and meet the everglades thus sinking the whole state into sea.

    That was 20 something years ago and dude they are still saying the same thing but this time they want you to pay the banker's bail-out for it.

    Give me a break.
    Reply to this comment
    by 6591Hou April 26, 2009 5:43 PM EDT
    Well we can't put solar farms in the southwest because the shade created would impact the environment of some endangered rodent, insect or lizard. We can't put up wind farms because it's bad for birds. We can't do geothermal because it causes the ground to subside. We can't do nuclear, coal, or oil because they all pollute....instead Al Gore will draw up a lottery for the execution of 55% of everyone on the planet - that will make it all better.
    Reply to this comment
    by Riteaidbob3 April 26, 2009 5:02 PM EDT
    MAN BEAR PIG!
    Reply to this comment
    by Riteaidbob3 April 26, 2009 5:01 PM EDT
    The worlds biggest SCAM just gets DEEPER and DEEPER! They are going to TAX the CR@P out of us and solve NOTHING because it's a JOKE if you think the Federal government will solve anything of this magnitude...AND I STILL CONSIDER THE WHOLE ISSUE A SCAM!!!!!!!!!!!
    Reply to this comment
    by ubrew12 April 26, 2009 4:06 PM EDT
    whitemale08 said: "Look dude, if we don't go nuclear then the banksters will laugh at you and go with a more prosperous country, let's say Iran in a few years. It's your choice. "

    Well, thats just hyperbole. I support increased nuclear, potentially doubling it, but don't forget its downsides:
    1. its easily 6 times more expensive than wind power (which is the cheapest option, even cheaper than coal).
    2. its Osama Bin Ladens 'pot-o-gold': imagine turning half a state into a 'no-fly zone'
    3. It has an unresolved waste problem
    4. It requires a fuel

    Solar, wind, wave, geothermal, EFFICIENCY. These are the directions we should be going, and the only reason we aren't has a title: "Exxon/Mobil"

    Oil doesn't want us thinking about renewables. OIL wants us thinking that CONSUMABLES are the only way to go (consumables like OIL and NUCLEAR).
    Reply to this comment
    by whitemale08 April 26, 2009 3:12 PM EDT
    And the French nuclear industry, despite reprocessing, nonetheless has generated 10,000 tons of spent fuel rods like those that now sit in "temporary" storage at Shearon Harris.
    Posted by evilbusheviks at 12:02 PM : Apr 26, 2009 --

    Look dude, if we don't go nuclear then the banksters will laugh at you and go with a more prosperous country, let's say Iran in a few years. It's your choice.
    Reply to this comment
    by whitemale08 April 26, 2009 3:06 PM EDT
    French nuclear industry, despite reprocessing, nonetheless has generated 10,000 tons of spent fuel rods like those that now sit in "temporary" storage at Shearon Harris.
    Posted by evilbusheviks at 11:59 AM : Apr 26, 2009 --

    Quit trying to make excuses to go back to horse-and-buggy.

    What's the trade-off go 'green' and deal with rolling black-outs starvation due to lack ogf clean water and shipping of our food supply?

    You're nuts dude!
    Reply to this comment
    See all 268 Comments
    .
    Scroll Left
    Scroll Right More »
    CBS News on Facebook