The webcast of Al Gore’s joint House committee testimony this morning just ended, probably so that Gore can grab something to eat before he testifies in front of the Senate EPW committee this afternoon. Gore exuded intelligence this morning — he was beyond well-versed in the diplomatic, scientific, economic, environmental, political and moral issues at hand.
After also watching the treatment of James Hansen at yesterday’s House Oversight and Reform Committee hearing, I’m still grappling with how smeared Hansen was versus how well-received Gore was.
Complaints that science should not meddle in politics and that politics should not meddle in science commonly surround the global warming predicament. But we are witnessing a rare, sensitive, and urgent overlap in which both actors are equally critical. I realize that Gore is one of the politicians’ own and has held an executive title more prestigious than theirs, but I remain confounded at the demand for sound science yet the frankly childish treatment of Hansen.
I do not mean to erode the value of Gore or his testimony. I was truly celebrating the feeling that the Members were listening or at least appreciating Gore’s recommendations. To answer one of David Roberts’ preliminary questions, his policy suggestions were bold.
Gore encouraged an immediate freeze on carbon emissions (yes, it is that serious!) and a revenue neutral tax shift to discourage pollution (and encourage work). He also recommended that we enter the global conversation again and aggressively pull forward the 2012 start-date of Kyoto’s second phase to 2010, a date tailored to our domestic political circumstances. According to Rep. Inglis (R-S.C.), we need to do the right thing “even if nobody’s watching.”
Overall, Gore suggests a comprehensive package, including higher CAFÉ standards, a cap-and-trade system on the electricity grid, and a ban on new coal plants that cannot capture and sequester carbon dioxide.
As for the economics, Gore says its time to internalize the external, meaning incorporate the environmental and other costs of pollution into its market value. Citing Amory Levins, in terms of the economic costs, we’ve got the sign (+/-) wrong. We should view this as the greatest opportunity to profitably overhaul our way of life and our economy.
As for the politics, Gore encourages us to expand what is feasible, to think outside the box, to push our known boundaries because this problem is larger than what we have known and the sky is the limit.
Can’t wait for the EPW hearing.
RSS
Subscribe by Email
Follow Climate Progress on Twitter
What is the solution to stopping the production of CO2? If you ban the use of coal fired power plants, do you then embrace the use of nuclear. These web pages require power.
Why don’t the global warming extremists not accept CO2 sequestration as if not a permanent solution at least one that could make a coal fired power plant carbon neutral. It seems that the only solutions offerered by Al Gore and his ilk are rather draconian. Someone please let me know why sequestration is not an acceptable means to reduce green house gases at a depth that they would not see the atmosphere for at least 100,000 years.
Gore does not advocate a blanket ban on coal-fired plants; he advocates to ban building NEW coal plants that canNOT capture and store/sequester emissions. In other words, from now on, capture and sequestration is the only acceptable condition under which to allow building new coal plants.
Your article creates a positive environment for change and growth. This is what Gore central position is. We need to continue to grow our economy while taking care that future generations will have a green environment to enjoy their life.
Our politicians and business leaders have failed to lead our country in tackling this issue compared to other industrial governments. Gore is helping to elevate the policy disucssion that needs to take place for our children.
Doug Kathol asks “What is the solution to stopping the production of CO2?” One answer is: (1) efficiency improvements; (2) wind and solar; (3) V2G; (4) algae biodiesel.
1. By instituting proven state efficiency standards at the Federal level we could eliminate 1634 TWh per year of generation. This is the equivalent of building 217 nuclear power plants. Since coal burning generates 1956 TWh per year, this would go a long way to getting rid of the need for coal. If a carbon tax or allocation system were put in place, coal would be so disadvantaged that the market would hurry to close those plants over others as demand fell. The savings is HUGE (26% of all U.S. CO2 emissions).
2. Wind and solar can replace the remaining 322 TWh of coal power generation that remains. There are issues with this much renewables on the grid, since renewables are intermittent. This can be addressed by the next point (V2G). Wind and solar can also replace gasoline using plug-in hybrid vehicles. This is not research; it is demonstrated technology. We don’t have time for research to solve our problems; we have to work with the technology we have today. That means forget about hydrogen.
3. V2G is an acronym for “Vehicle to Grid”. Imagine you’ve got a large fleet of electric or hybrid vehicles. It turns out that the batteries in this fleet are enough to stabilize the power grid when wind doesn’t blow or the sun doesn’t shine. It is well studied. Today’s grid has a 5-20% renewables limit. V2G allows renewables to go from 50% of the grid.
4. Algae biodiesel is what we need to replace conventional diesel, which is primarily used for freight transporation. Batteries are not going to move freight very well. But it turns out biodiesel from algae can yield 30x per acre what you get from “oilseed crops” like soybeans. This is efficient enough that it is feasible to do (unlike most biofuels). These algae might also be the best answer for sequestration too. Biodiesel is not competitive with electricity for powering personal transportation, but it would make a great backup fuel for a plug-in hybrid.