Goracle on Meet the Press

Questions for Gore's energy plan?

Posted by Sara Barz at 11:10 AM on 18 Jul 2008

Read more about: climate | energy | politics | mainstream media | Al Gore

This Sunday, Al Gore will appear on NBC's "Meet the Press" to talk about the energy action plan he unveiled in Washington this week.

So, Grist readers, in tribute to the late Tim Russert, what kind of tough questions do you want host Tom Brokaw to lob Gore's way? Offer your suggestions here.

Looking ahead, is it safe to say that Gore stands to get a very warm reception from interim "Meet" host Brokaw? After all, the ex-NBC anchor hosted an Emmy Award-winning Discovery show back in 2006 that explored the reality of climate change and the need to address it. And he's a self-proclaimed environmentalist -- a lover of the outdoors (travels the world with Patagonia founder Yvon Chouinard) who touts his personal efforts to conserve energy.

Brokaw also did his part to flack Gore's movie, "An Incovenient Truth."

Will Brokaw embrace his inner Russert and grill Gore about how exactly the nation can meet a 100 percent renewable electricity goal by 2018?

For story: Goracle on Meet the Press
11 Comments | Post a Comment

Brokaw's documentary

As I recall, Brokaw didn't flak Gore's movie. In fact, I seem to remember people thinking that he was trying to compete or one-up Gore's movie. The article you link to quotes him as saying of An Inconvenient Truth: "I thought there was too much of Gore, but that's not my call."

by davidACCCE at 12:23 PM on 18 Jul 2008

Casting seeds

Everybody talking expects somebody else will do the work. Its like casting seeds without cultivation.

How will we know the difference between money sucking scams enabled by public goodwill and those ideas that can really save the world?

by sunflower at 12:44 PM on 18 Jul 2008

I would ask basic questions

What is the ideal climate for Earth?

After we eliminate humankind's contribution to climate change, what will we do to stop the natural rate of change?

Your carbon footprint would frighten Sasquatch. I know that you support the purchase off carbon offsets, but how does planting a tree which will eventually die, decay and release CO2 offset anything?

The rest would be follow up questions.

"...a 90 percent chance that the US has contributed .2 degrees F of temperature increase in the last 50 years..." The IPCC Consensus in perspective

by Paleocon at 7:43 PM on 18 Jul 2008

What's the plan?

In a comment in Sara Barz's piece, "Late to the party, but made the last call" I suggested that Gore's call should be thought of more like a thought experiment, a what could we do? kind of message.

I then outlined a first step that suggests we put the horse back in front of the cart. There is a physical truth of the matter that should be understood to put proper constraints on the issue. We need to understand the physical baseline, as it were, before we start doodling up policies for supposed solutions. As a nation, we rarely take this tack. I think this is mostly because we tend to think political "realities" really do trump physics. Bush's administration is just the most egregious example. But I hear this all the time from politicians and policy wonks. Since most people don't really have a handle on basic science but do have a prevailing ideology, the tendency to rely on the latter to guide in lieu of the former seems to be the common approach.

The first step is simple. First find out what is physically feasible, second apply ecological economics to find out what is economically feasible given the physical constraints, third then let the policy makers have a whack at it. If the latter folk violate an earlier established constraint then get a new policy team. (see the linked comment for details).

Of course it is too rational for the way we do things in this country so I have no real hope. Just thought I'd mention it. And suggest we ask Mr. Gore for his plan.

George

George Mobus, Associate Professor, Institute of Technology, University of Washington Tacoma, and Professional Student for Life

by gmobus at 8:34 PM on 18 Jul 2008

Too much basic science

In fact, basic science is not sufficient to explain and model our climate. It is the sum of many chaotic inputs. AGW fundamentalism depends upon the concept that it is, instead, something that can be described with "basic science".

Would you have us believe that it is this simple?

"Man releases CO2. CO2 increases greenhouse effect. Earth warms. Bad, bad things happen. Man must make changes. The fact that those changes line up perfectly with Haight-Ashburyism is a coincidence. Ignore the man behind the curtain."

The arrogance and condescension of the left and their propensity to rationalize their ideology never ceases to amaze me.

"...a 90 percent chance that the US has contributed .2 degrees F of temperature increase in the last 50 years..." The IPCC Consensus in perspective

by Paleocon at 9:41 PM on 19 Jul 2008
[ Parent ]

Carbon tax/payroll tax reduction

This is the key question to ask Gore. How this (much better) plan to price carbon would eliminate the problem of cap and trade, which would put the fate of the GHG climate health of the planet in the hands of hedge fund insider trading "free" market manipulation.

This is a major step forward, a revenue neutral way to price carbon and at the same time help people cope with rising energy prices. A no tax hike way to put a price on GHG intensive energy sources.

Brokaw won't ask it of course. Too controversial.

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

by amazingdrx at 5:15 AM on 20 Jul 2008

Dear Al Gore............

Thanks for your steady and careful contributions to the work of this day, the work being ignored or else censored by most of our not-so-great generation's leaders. These "professional stonewallers" are readily identifiable: the talking heads in the mass media, the economic powerbrokers all of their minions and surrogates, and bought-and-paid-for politicians.

Please do "keep soldiering on." Given the potentially catastrophic circumstances looming before the family of humanity, our 'soldiers' will ultimately have to prevail, I suppose, because if 'our side' ahould somehow fail, then all is lost. That is to say, a colossal wreckage could occur on the surface of Earth, a unimaginable cataclysm the likes of which only the King of a thousand greedy little kings, Ozymandias, has seen.

Perhaps leadership in our time is doing a disservice to the human community, to life as we know it and to Earth's body by maniacally pursuing a course of unbridled and unrelenting global economic growth. This "biggest business is best" growth madness appears to be a particularly foolish and soon to be destructive form of frenzy that will likely become as serious a threat to the human family in the days ahead as the elective mutism of our leaders is today.

Let's keep going.

All my best,

Steve

by stevenearlsalmony at 5:53 AM on 20 Jul 2008

Hehey

"Haight-Ashburyism"

You ha(ig)te that don't you. It's becoming very uncool to be a dimbulb limboob lately.

That's a shame. Go fill up your hummer, that'll cheer you up. Vroooom! The sound of compensation for a small... mind?

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

by amazingdrx at 6:27 AM on 20 Jul 2008

Fascinating

I am continually amazed at how Gore can avoid dealing with the half of the scientific community which questions his Gorisms on Global Warming! He refuses to publicly debate with a scientist who disagrees with him and he continues to extol his virtues. Changing his huge house into a "green mansion" by buying green energy from companies he has founded to take econo-political advantage of his preachings. How can there be such a large community who does not question his motives.

He is a first class snake oil salesman!
They used to run them out of town with a celebration!

by howardlsmith at 8:22 AM on 20 Jul 2008

So, I guess I nailed it

Clearly the lack of intelligent response indicates that I am on the right track.

"...a 90 percent chance that the US has contributed .2 degrees F of temperature increase in the last 50 years..." The IPCC Consensus in perspective

by Paleocon at 10:24 PM on 20 Jul 2008
[ Parent ]

nailed your own argument

and for that 10 percent chance you want to bankrupt the US by moving companies to India and China where they don't have to bend over and kiss your ...
and you want eliminate low cost sources of energy and heating for all US citizens resulting in hunger and freezing winters.

We need to forget about whether there is a climate change due to increase in CO2 and learn how to live with any changes that are developing. We need to focus on new lower cost sources of energy. We need to ensure that we have climate adaptable crops that will provide food.

We need to forget about playing god and trying to turn back the clock.

I personally believe that the sun has a bigger impact than man and this is just part of the cycles that earth has been going through for centuries.

by howardlsmith at 4:04 AM on 26 Jul 2008
[ Parent ]

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.