Mr. Gore, how do you feel about 90 percent?

Blogosphere responds reservedly to Gore's call for 100 percent renewable electricity

Posted by Sara Barz at 6:01 PM on 17 Jul 2008

Read more about: climate | politics | climate change mitigation | Al Gore

Al Gore stood up in Washington today to call on Americans to join a crusade for 100 percent renewable electricity use by 2018.

The blogosphere's response? A golf clap and general round of nitpicking ...

Some see the renewable energy goal as a touch impractical, and his beating of the carbon tax drum (1993 ... anyone? anyone?) irked plenty of conservatives -- no surprise -- and congressional Democrats on the grounds of poor timing as the American economy limps along.

A roundup of reactions:

At the New York Times's DotEarth blog, Andy Revkin posted the text of Gore's speech with his comments. Where other bloggers were willing to look past Gore's scientific claims, Revkin challenged the validity of his climate change associations to Arctic sea ice loss and severe weather. In response to the tornado comment:

Why mention tornadoes? There's been no evidence of an increase in dangerous tornadoes since careful records have been kept (great graphic at this link). It's really no different stressing "strange" weather in a push for limiting greenhouse gases than doing so to fight the same policy shift.

While acknowledging the renewable energy goal as admirable, Revkin also questioned the ability to ramp up renewables in 10 years:

The price differential between renewable energy sources and coal burning is shifting, but a 10-year transformation is hard to foresee given the incredibly small base from which solar is growing ... and the long timeline for boosting geothermal generation, among other issues. An Energy Department review of geothermal sources last year said we might be able to generate as much electricity by 2050 that way as is now produced with nuclear plants. But currently nuclear generation is less than 20 percent of the national electricity pie. Sure, that might be accelerated, but 10 years?

A similar sentiment was echoed at DailyKos by Jerome a Paris, who received Gore's call more warmly than Revkin, but with still an eye of skepticism:

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.

Joseph Romm, the lead blogger of Climate Progress (who also blogs at Gristmill), delighted in Gore's ambitious "moonshot" goal, but added:

Personally, I would have set the challenge at closer to 50% by 2020 and 90% by 2030. In particular, I'd like a few years for solar photovoltaics and concentrated solar thermal to mature a little more, to see what are the very best strategies and technologies. And I'm not certain all the money in the world can get us a substantial amount of "clean coal" (presumably coal with carbon capture and storage) in a decade. So all that speaks to adding another decade. Also, I don't know why we would want to shut down the combined cycle natural gas turbines, which is why I'd be more than happy to see this country with a 90% fossil-free grid in 2030.

Wholly in the Gore camp, Grassroots activist and HuffPo blogger Christine Pelosi considered the speech "a phenomenal call to service for a generation of Americans hungry for change."

And talk about strange bedfellows: Libertarian Party presidential candidate Bob Barr showed up in person for Gore's speech, as reported in the Austin American Statesman:

He called Gore's plan important for moving the country away from its dependence on foreign oil. He also criticized fellow candidates Barack Obama and John McCain for not showing up for the event, saying their absence showed "they don't really care about the issue."

Speaking of Obama, the Democratic hopeful stopped short of completely supporting Gore's call:

I strongly agree with Vice President Gore that we cannot drill our way to energy independence, but must fast-track investments in renewable sources of energy like solar power, wind power and advanced biofuels, and those are the investments I will make as President.

Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), the influential member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, was much more excited by Gore's call to action:

Congress must take this clarion call from our nation's climate sage and act, swiftly and fairly. Climate legislation can grow our economy, assist low and middle income families and workers, and transition us to a stable, clean energy future, but we are running out of time.

However, as the Hill reported in a preview piece to Gore's speech, some of Markey's colleagues diverged over the timing of the speech:

"It depends on how it's presented," said Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), who emphasized he did not want to "pre-empt" Gore's speech by telling him what to say.

"I think the American public will be much more receptive to arguments about climate change when gas prices aren't so critical," said Rep. Zack Space, a freshman Democrat who represents a mostly rural district in Ohio.

In other lackluster reactions to the Goracle, the Wall Street Journal's blog Environmental Capital also considered the timing in poor taste with respect to the toll gas prices are taking on Americans' wallets:

Don't look now, but with gasoline approaching $5 a gallon, even many Californians are coming around to the idea of offshore drilling, the WSJ reports today.

But the WSJ blog did praise Gore's recognition of a much-needed new transmission grid as well as Texas' efforts to expand its own grid.

And speaking of Texas, one would expect T. Boone Pickens -- the oil billionaire who found wind -- to be a natural cheerleader for Gore's effort. But some habits die hard, and Pickens the longtime supporter of conservative causes came out blasting at the former veep:

We import 70% of our oil and that number is growing larger every year. Vice President Gore's plan does not address this enormous problem, it is clear that he and I have two different objectives and our plans should be viewed with that in mind."

However, Boone's criticism rang hollow considering that if the United States moved forward with Gore's call for total renewable energy, oil imports would be implicitly reduced. Boone did take issue with Gore's reliance on a carbon tax to fund this change to total renewable energy and the scant mention of the role of private investment. "The Federal Government should provide the leadership to clear the way for action and private enterprise should build the infrastructure to get it done."

For the most part, there was a remarkable absence of conservatives in the online reax to Gore's speech (at least here in the early running). Town Hall, RedState, Michelle Malkin and other mainstays of the Right's blogosphere of note were quite subdued or silent post Gore's big day. Even Newt Gingrich who has made the airwaves frequently as of late with his petition to drill offshore had little to say on Gore's moony vision.

The exception was Planet Gore on the National Review Online. Iain Murray couldn't resist noting Gore's choice of transportation to and from the speech:

Of course, we saw plenty of hypocrisy -- especially the fact that Gore didn't ride his bike or take public transporation to the event. He didn't even take his Prius! Instead, he brought a fleet of two Lincoln Town Cars and a Chevy Suburban SUV! Even worse, the driver of the Town Car that eventually whisked away Gore's wife and daughter left the engine idling and the AC cranking for 20 minutes before they finally left!

Ed Frank, blogger for Americans for Prosperity, echoed Murray's thoughts as well as posted a video regarding his aforementioned transportation tackiness and Gore's carbon tax. The video claims Gore's plan would bump gas up to $8 per gallon.

Kevin Williamson, who writes the Media Blog on National Review, challenged Gore on the hyperbolic tone of his speech:

The future of human civilization is at stake ... if we don't conform to Mr. Gore's preferences as to how we produce electricity. No, it probably isn't. Is anybody keeping score on this? Al Gore and his minions have become the contemporary equivalent of that guy walking around with a sandwich-board reading "The End Is Near." How near? Anybody want to put any money on Al Gore's ability to call the date?

Taking offense at the New York Times' unquestioning reportage of Gore's urgent tone, Williamson asked whether Dan Quayle would have received the same acceptance had he delivered such a hyperbolic climate address.

That depends. Would there have been a spelling contest?

For story: Mr. Gore, how do you feel about 90 percent?
14 Comments | Post a Comment

Forget the rest

Here's the best.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2008/7/18/ ...

Sure keep using natural gas and take 20 years for the complete transition, that's ok Joe.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

by amazingdrx at 12:16 AM on 18 Jul 2008

the vital work of our time

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

by stevenearlsalmony at 8:50 AM on 18 Jul 2008

"Bad timing?"???!!!!

If it's considered "bad timing" to introduce these ideas while "gas prices are high", then it will be permanently "bad timing" because gas prices won't be coming down, they'll be going up. Does this mean that it has to be made clear that carbon-free electricity will be less expensive or not more expensive?

The other thing that people should be aware of is that transportation = oil, but transportation does not use electricity -- at least, not yet -- and the rest of the economy uses electricity, but doesn't really use oil. So the two fields are separate.

So I don't see how "high gas prices" can be linked with electricity -- on the other hand, Gore did not therefore directly address how transportation will be carbon-free, did he?

by Jon Rynn at 9:04 AM on 18 Jul 2008

Seething

Weak. That's been the response. The objections seem to be down to three main categories: technological, economic, and political.

Technology
Are we where we'd like to be from a technology standpoint? No. Are we where we'd like to be from a climate standpoint? Guess which one is the more important (and pressing) question.

Economics
It will cost trillions to pull it off (by Mr. Gore's own figures), but guess where that money actually goes? What do you think is a better economic stimulus package - a transformative national program, or a childish, short-sighted bribe of rebate checks? (Just typing that question almost made me throw up.)

Politics
This one... Gore's speech was about raising the mental bar for the citizens of this country, and ultimately the weak-kneed politicians will only do what we demand of them, and apparently we must demand loudly. So hopefully the speech tied national security and the economy in well enough to wake some people up.

I apologize for the tone, but frankly, I'm a little pissed at the reactions I've seen.

by zencarver at 11:04 AM on 18 Jul 2008

Jon Rynn

Hi Jon, we are discussing your point at this other Gore thread on this site. There was confusion about Gore's goal and whether it was just for electricity or all carbon sources. Even live audience members were having to carefully parse the words.

http://www.grist.org/news/2008/07/17/GoreDC/

by christophersj at 11:12 AM on 18 Jul 2008
[ Parent ]

Thanks Chris

by Jon Rynn at 12:34 PM on 18 Jul 2008

You have to start at the extreme

To get anywhere. Gore is starting with the entire enchilada, in hopes that SOMETHING will be done. I applaud him for it.

We may all surprise ourselves with our ability to innovate and get things done!

by splashy at 9:23 PM on 21 Jul 2008

How about roughly 69% in two years?

Seriously, not trolling, not kidding.

Two key technologies combined can do it that quickly.

1. Non-food based biofuel production using an integrated system of biodiesel, integrated methane digestion and composting fed to high efficiency fuel cells or cogeneration equipment, while returning the organics to the earth as clean safe fertilizer. Benefit, roughly 33% of the energy needed, all while being profitable and cost effective and quick to build.

(Fertilizer use ends up cutting still more out of the fossil fuel dependency problem but I don't have a firm percentage at the moment so that is not in the 69% mentioned.)

2. High energy efficiency housing. There are several alternative housing technologies around now which cut 90% or more of the energy used in an average home. With roughly 40% of the energy use in America going to home use that translates to roughly 36% energy savings.

With the housing market down and so many people losing their homes, good cost effective housing can and should be a huge focus. Quite a few of these homes could be built and ready for use in as little as six months.

Combine these two and you get 69% energy reduction, using very thumbnail calculations admittedly but the point is that the technology to do a big part of it is already here and reliable, cheap and profitable.

We just need either government or investors with the backbone to step up and it could start happening very quickly.

I know this because it is what I have been working on since 1982, long before such things were fashionable.

Visit our website or email us for more information as we are actively looking for people to work with to help improve the future of our civilization.

by Applied Ecotechnics at 3:39 AM on 22 Jul 2008

Good comments

The comments here are, of course, rather good and talk about different aspects.

What worries me more is the other 90% who still have only the vaguest idea what is going on in climate let alone oil supply and other "Peaks", who have little understanding of science or ability to get it, and whose votes count as much as those who know what they are talking about.

Normally I don't worry about it, and I accept that most people live a simple live, but when that 90% of our voting public thinks "we are low on oil, prices are going up, we had better drill more" and that is the whole analysis, as encouraged by narrow-thinking political figures, I really worry about whether we will grasp this opportunity or be busy finger-pointing in 10 years when oil supply collapses and we still have nothing in place.

David

David Alexander
PlanetThoughts.org
Love your Planet.

by planetthoughts at 5:44 PM on 22 Jul 2008

It's scary

I agree. The level of apathy and ignorance in this country is truly appalling.

Of course when you consider the intentional undermining of peoples rights to push for change and the corruption of the sources of basic information that most people rely on and all the misinformation/disinformation it is easy to see why many people lost their motivation.

Add to this the culture of consumer brainwashing and focusing on material and personal desires and you have a recipe for apathy and the resulting corruption of our system.

Getting the word out to the general public or even just to people in office and investors who make be interested in the profitability of such things is ludicrously difficult and also made even more difficult by various laws as well as the existing inertia/apathy, even amongst the media.

Visit our website or email us for more information as we are actively looking for people to work with to help improve the future of our civilization.

by Applied Ecotechnics at 6:41 PM on 22 Jul 2008

Timing in poor taste? Hardly.

I don't agree that the timing of this proposal is "in poor taste with respect to the toll gas prices are taking on Americans' wallets." If our government were to make a serious commitment to switching to renewable energy, especially within a 10 year timeframe, that would immediately begin to drive the price of oil down, based on the expectation of seriously reduced demand. Our legislators have the opportunity to kill two birds with one stone here.

by wac033 at 8:35 PM on 22 Jul 2008

Gas prices

I agree there is no poor taste or bad timing about it. But I am curious. We use oil for a tiny percent of electricity generation. A tiny percent of peaking, plus some remote generation where oil is the only available fuel. So a commitment to renewable electricity will do all sorts of wonderful things. But I don't think bringing down oil prices is one of them. Mind you a commitment to renewable energy along with a commitment to electrifying transportation would lower oil prices. I'm still waiting to hear anything from Gore on this, but maybe I missed something.

I would add that even without tackling oil and ten year phase out of fossil fuel for electricity is a good idea. If subsidized properly it would lower electric bills, which would put money in peoples pockets to make up for higher oil prices. And if you eliminated electricity emissions in the first ten years, you could phase out most of the rest in second by a combination of increased efficiency and by expanding that generation and substituting electricity for fossil fuels. Still tackling some of the low hanging fruit in transport, buildings and industry at the same time we decarbonized electricity would be better.

by Gar Lipow at 9:47 PM on 22 Jul 2008

re:Gas prices

Gar, you bring up a very good point that oil is not the primary fuel that we'd be replacing by meeting Al Gore's challenge. I hadn't realized that oil is so little used in electricity generation. Thanks for enlightening me!

Unfortunately, this fact shows my original premise to be false. Still, as you point out, if the electrification of transportation is also accomplished, then that would greatly reduce demand for oil. The good news here is that there is already work being done on plug-in hybrids and electric cars because of the high price of oil.

Finally, I have to agree that even without helping oil prices as I had originally hoped, I would love to see Al Gore's challenge met!

by wac033 at 4:38 PM on 24 Jul 2008
[ Parent ]

Replacing oil with renewables.

Well, yes and no, some renewables will help replace oil more than others.

For example, methane can be liquefied and used in much the same way as ethanol.

Likewise methane can be used to make production of both ethanol and biodiesel more efficient and thereby more ecofriendly.

Visit our website or email us for more information as we are actively looking for people to work with to help improve the future of our civilization.

by Applied Ecotechnics at 7:35 PM on 24 Jul 2008

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.