Al Gore

Two-pronged strategy to sway energy policy debate

Putting aside the causes of the oil-price rise and what the future holds, I am concerned that progressives are losing the public debate about what to do about it. Like David, I was extremely disappointed with Gore's interview on Meet the Press this past week, both with respect to the ridiculous questions from Brokaw and Gore's complete inability to get the right message across.

And now we have an editorial from The Wall Street Journal (as well as John McCain himself) making the absurd claim that Bush's lifting of the offshore oil drilling ban is responsible for the recent drop in oil prices. Since I am assume both McCain and the op-ed writer are smart enough to know that this is false, one can only assume they are willing to lie because they think that this presents an opening for the rightwing in a season when they look doomed.

Unfortunately, data exists to back up this belief, as the public's support for offshore oil drilling is rising. The simple fact is that when costs of energy go up, most people are willing to put aside environmental concerns, including global warming.

This is why it is crucial that progressives, and especially the Obama campaign (who brilliantly won the gas tax holiday debate during the primaries), need to adopt an aggressive strategy for winning over the public on energy issues.

Here's what I think should be the central message:

On the art of setting (and hitting) emission targets

Gore's call for 100 percent renewable electricity generation within 10 years may seem, at first blush, to be so far out in left field as to lack any seriousness -- but it has some commonality with established regulatory policy. For example, California's global warming law (AB 32) is rooted in Governor Schwarzenegger's Executive Order S-03-05, issued on June 1, 2005, ordering that "the following greenhouse gas emission reduction targets are hereby established for California: by 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels; by 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; by 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels."

What is notable about both Gore's and the governor's targets is that all the numbers happen to end in zero. Gore did not call for a reduction of, say, 95 percent in 13 years; his targets are evidently ballpark numbers more-or-less picked out of a hat. "One hundred percent" can basically be interpreted to mean "a whole lot" and "10 years" translates to "ASAP."

T. Boone Pickens’ plan is overexposed and inferior to Gore’s

It's official: T. Boone is overexposed. His monotonous TV ad runs on an endless loop, he has testified in front of Congress, he is now appearing on every cable show, and everybody quotes him even though he doesn't actually agree with anybody but himself.

What specifically bugs me:

1. His ads say we can't drill our way out of this problem, but then he says we should drill everywhere -- offshore, Alaska, your backyard.
2. He keeps pushing his absurd idea of switching over to natural gas vehicles.
3. His plan shares a great deal in common with Al Gore's, but he still goes out of his way to diss it (inaccurately, see below): "Gore's Global Warming Plan Ignores Crippling Stranglehold Foreign Oil Has on America's Economic and National Security."
4. Sen. Joe Lieberman (I/D/R ?-Conn.) said the plan is a "classically American message of honesty, determination and can-do optimism."
5. Did I mention he keeps pushing his absurd idea of switching over to natural gas vehicles, even though Russia, Iran, and Persian Gulf states have most of world's gas reserves?

The Gore critique seems to me particularly lame, as if he can't stand to share the stage with anyone else. Why else release such a petty statement as this:

The media’s central arguments for and against Gore’s challenge to the nation

Nearly a week after Gore unveiled his carbon-free challenge (sounds sadly kind of like a reality TV gimmick), the substantive reactions from the nation's editorial pages and blogosphere fit (for better of for worse) into two groupings: precedent versus vision.

Brushing past the naysayers (John Tierney and his "junk science" complaints) and the yes-men (Christine Pelosi and her Gorish platitudes), those in the "precedent" camp tend to disapprove of Gore's goal on the basis that United States continues to produce very little renewable energy, so these critics say ramping up to 100 percent renewable is impossible. Those in the "vision" group tend to applaud Gore's call on the basis that it offers a compelling vision for the future, even if it lacks details.

These divisions do not completely break down along political lines. It's true that those who tend not to like Al Gore tend not to like Al Gore's challenge and vice versa; yet, there are some notable exceptions.

From fossil fuels to manufacturing for wind and solar energy

A couple of years ago, Al Gore made the case, in a film called An Inconvenient Truth, that we have a big problem called global warming. But the film was not effective at pointing to a solution. Humans evolved to consider a crisis as a challenge, as long as a solution is readily available. Otherwise, panic or resignation sets in.

Now, Gore has moved a significant step further by arguing that all sources of electricity should be carbon-free -- in other words, all of our electricity should be generated using wind, solar, or geothermal power, instead of coal, natural gas, or oil.

The next step should be to explain how we move to a fossil fuel-free electrical system. Gore continues to advocate a revenue-neutral carbon tax, but it feels like he's searching for something else, something that would be part of the effort to clean up the energy system.

He might consider the idea that rebuilding the manufacturing economy by building solar and wind equipment would not only lead to a carbon-free system, but also would revive the national economy and the middle class.

Better questions for Gore

In response to my rant about Gore on Meet the Press, a certain boss of my acquaintance asked me what questions I would have asked. Here are a few: High gas prices have created extraordinary pressure for a short-term political response, which Republicans are providing with their drilling campaign. What is a better political and […]

We can do more than he calls for, but I would settle for Gore’s objective

Everyone is talking about Gore's proposal to decarbonize electricity over the course of 10 years.

Without considering transmission and storage losses, Gore's estimate of $1.5 to 3 trillion would require capital costs of under 37 to 74 cents per annual kWh. Taking those losses into consideration, cost would have to be more in the 28 to 56 cents per kWh range. (Note again these are not cost per watt of capacity. These are costs per annual kWh. They are levelized costs translated into capital numbers.) Jon Rynn and I have a worksheet in process on costs to 95 percent decarbonize economy, rather than 100 percent decarbonizing the grid. But it does include 99 percent decarbonizing the Grid, including a 30 percent redundancy to handle annual variations. The bottom price with the most aggressive improvements we looked at came to 66 cents per annual kWh. That comes out to $3.54 trillion, about $540 billion more than Gore budgets. But because biomass has proven so devastating ecologically, and so disastrous to the poor we assume very little use of biomass. Also we phase out nuclear as well as fossil fuels, something I'm pretty sure Gore does not. More nuclear and biomass not only reduce the amount electricity that needs to be generated, but it also reduces the need for storage losses. So Gore's plan does pencil out at the high end with 100 percent fossil-fuel free electricity at under $3 trillion.

If you follow our plan you would probably see the grid more like 90 percent decarbonized in first 10 years. But you would also see 85 percent of truck freight shifted to mostly electrified trains, construction of light rail, and massive reductions of emissions in residences, commercial buildings, and industrial use. So we reduce emissions by more than Gore's proposal, and reduce oil use significantly too, something Gore's plan would not do. So not only is Gore's plan feasible over a 10 year period, much greater reductions are feasible than Gore calls for over a 10 year period. Gore remains, as he as always has been, a mainstream centrist. That so much of the environmental community and netroots chooses to back away from it as "almost feasible" or "a moonshot," that is, as too radical, says something about their timidity.

Chatting with Al Gore and Jim Hightower at Netroots Nation

Our partners at ReGeneration.org were able to snag a few quick interviews with notable Netroots Nation attendees Al Gore and former Texas Agriculture Commissioner, author, radio host, and activist Jim Hightower. Here’s what Gore had to say about why climate and environment action should be a bipartisan effort: And here’s Hightower on what should be […]

Al Gore on Meet the Press

Following his blockbuster speech on Thursday and his appearance at Netroots Nation yesterday, Al Gore was on Meet the Press today to talk about his new proposal. It was … painful. First off, Tom Brokaw’s questions were, almost without exception, awful. Just awful. They reflected the most brain dead, ill-informed D.C. conventional wisdom you can […]