Gore Heats Up the House
Wednesday, March 21st, 2007The 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.

Connor has collected and looked at research from the last year on positive and negative feedback cycles, and he lays some out in layman’s language. Yet his reporting is not diluted at all. To the contrary, it’s honest, and that only magnifies its fear-factor.



