T Nation

The Gore Plan

Some of this sounds somewhat interesting, but he’s got to realize that number 1 is a complete non-starter, unless he has a magical new invention up his sleeve that can do for power generation what his invention of the internet did for communication…

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/119258.html

[i]Gleanings from Gore’s testimony before Congress.

Gore: “We face a planetary emergency. I know it sounds shrill.”

He proposed a Marshall Plan to address climate change. “We do not have time to play around with this,” Gore declared.

Specific suggestions.

(1) We should immediately freeze CO2 emission in US. Begin sharp reductions by 90% by 2050. [In other words, emit only 10% of CO2 that we emit today…] Freeze it right now.

(2) I believe we should start using the tax code to reduce taxes on production and employment and substitute pollution taxes. We’re discouraging work and encouraging the destruction of the planet’s habitability. We should discourage pollution while encouraging work. Carbon pollution is not currently priced into the marketplace. I internalize air and water and I think that the economic system should too.

(3) A portion of those revenues must be earmarked for lower income groups to make this transition

(4) I’m in favor of a strong global treaty to limit greenhouse gas emissions?I’m in favor of Kyoto?I fully understand as a brand it’s been demonized. I think we should work toward de facto compliance with Kyoto. My formal proposal is to move forward the adoption of the next treaty to 2010, not when Kyoto expires in 2012. We have to work to get China and India in participate in some way, to make them part of this effort.

(5) This Congress should enact a moratorium on all new coal fired power plants not compatible with carbon capture and sequestration.

(6) This congress should develop a Electronet?a smart grid. We ought to have a law, allow people to put up photovoltaic and wind generation and sell electricity into grid without any artificial caps.

(7) Must raise CAF? standards for automobile and trucks. CAF? must be part of a comprehensive package. Don?t single out cars and trucks. The problem is cars, coal and buildings, so must address all three

(8) Set a date for banning incandescent light bulbs.

(9) Carbon neutral mortgage association (Connie Mae) The idea is that the market doesn’t properly price energy saving technologies, e.g., insulation, double paned windows, and so forth, so government should create some kind of financial instrument to pay for these energy saving techs. He claims that they will pay for themselves.

(10) The Securities and Exchange Commission ought to require disclosure of carbon emissions in corporate reports. Because it’s a material risk that companies face.[/i]


Discuss amongst yourselves.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Some of this sounds somewhat interesting, but he’s got to realize that number 1 is a complete non-starter, unless he has a magical new invention up his sleeve that can do for power generation what his invention of the internet did for communication…

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/119258.html

[i]Gleanings from Gore’s testimony before Congress.

Gore: “We face a planetary emergency. I know it sounds shrill.”

He proposed a Marshall Plan to address climate change. “We do not have time to play around with this,” Gore declared.

Specific suggestions.

(1) We should immediately freeze CO2 emission in US. Begin sharp reductions by 90% by 2050. [In other words, emit only 10% of CO2 that we emit today…] Freeze it right now.
[/quote]

Kill 90% of the population?

Why use heavy equipment to dig a ditch when poor people can do it by hand?

Typical liberal suggestion for any issue.

What a joke. He has admitted Kyoto was a crock of shit. A bad treaty is worse than no treaty.

Let’s limit the one strong domestic source of power.

Agree.

Agreed. If Clinton didn’t exclude SUV’s and light trucks we would be far better off today. He could have nipped it in the bud but now Detroit will suffer when we get away from these types of vehicles.

I wish Bush would have done more as well.

Banning seems a bit severe but I have changed most of the bulbs in my house to compact fluorescent.

The price of energy is already figured in the cost of goods.

This sounds like a way to set up some corruption. Good for the politicians. Bad for everyone else.

Who is going to track that? Sounds like a recipe for dishonesty.

Gonna comment on these 1 at a time.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Some of this sounds somewhat interesting, but he’s got to realize that number 1 is a complete non-starter, unless he has a magical new invention up his sleeve that can do for power generation what his invention of the internet did for communication…

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/119258.html

[i]Gleanings from Gore’s testimony before Congress.

Gore: “We face a planetary emergency. I know it sounds shrill.”

He proposed a Marshall Plan to address climate change. “We do not have time to play around with this,” Gore declared.

Specific suggestions.

(1) We should immediately freeze CO2 emission in US. Begin sharp reductions by 90% by 2050. [In other words, emit only 10% of CO2 that we emit today…] Freeze it right now.[/quote]

This is plain stupid. He is asking us to bend over and let China and India go town on American industry. The CO2 in the atmosphere is roughly at 300 - 600 ppm. Plant growth is stunted at 200 ppm. Plants show significantly more growth at 1000 ppm of CO2. 20% of humans will show discomfort at 1000ppm. For CO2 to be fatal, you need levels of around 5000ppm.

So the question is really how valid is the CO2 argument anyways?

(I read up on this stuff after hearing an interview about ice cores from Antarctica and how their CO2 levels relate to temperature).

There is also no valid evidence that an increase in CO2 levels cause an increase in temperature, it is very possible that the reverse is true, and an increase in temperature causes an increase in CO2. Correlation versus causation.

This is weird. While I am all for reducing the amount of waste and harmful toxins that get dumped into the atmosphere, is a tax code the way to do it?

No idea.

I think we should not ignore the potential amount of devastation that pollutants in emerging markets can ignore (just read up on the polluted rivers in China), but Kyoto is the wrong way to go about it. There are things far worse than CO2 that we need to worry about.

[/quote]
(5) This Congress should enact a moratorium on all new coal fired power plants not compatible with carbon capture and sequestration.
[/quote]

Holy crap, we are still making coal power plants??!? The 21st century disappoints me again.

I have no problem with people selling excess energy they produce back into the grid.

This targeting CO2 or the other stuff cars pump out? I like clean cars, less oil dependence is never a bad thing in my book.

Agreed, damn things are pieces of junk. Bring on the LEDs!!

I use the energy saving bulbs everywhere in my house that I can. It made a difference in the electric bill when you have 4 guys leaving lights on all the time. I would kill for some double pane windows too (place is a rental). By paying for themselves I assume he means that the utility bills would be lower and offset the increased cost of these items?

Why?

[quote]


Discuss amongst yourselves. [/quote]

discussed.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Discuss amongst yourselves. [/quote]

I wish he could rephrase this whole thing from “planetary emergency” to something along the lines of “sustainability”. While I do believe he may think he is well intentioned he is not a scientist and does not speak for the entire scientific community in terms of global climate change. That much is known.

He is a politician and the best way to politicize an issue is to use fear tactics to promote an agenda.

These might be plausible ideas with the exception of (1). I see no de facto way to decrease carbon emissions nor am I willing to accept, at this time, that carbon emissions are the root cause of climate change.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Discuss amongst yourselves.

I wish he could rephrase this whole thing from “planetary emergency” to something along the lines of “sustainability”. While I do believe he may think he is well intentioned he is not a scientist and does not speak for the entire scientific community in terms of global climate change. That much is known.

He is a politician and the best way to politicize an issue is to use fear tactics to promote an agenda.

These might be plausible ideas with the exception of (1). I see no de facto way to decrease carbon emissions nor am I willing to accept, at this time, that carbon emissions are the root cause of climate change.[/quote]

Agreed.

Stop accusing him of not being a scientist. He KNOWS that. We KNOW that. Global warming is probably not the immidiate threat he says it is, and he probably knows that. But that doesn’t make him insincere about his intentions.