• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Energy crisis threatens U.S. survival, Gore says

sactoking

Diamond Member
Text

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United States should be making all of its electricity with renewable and carbon-free energy in 10 years, former Vice President Al Gore said Thursday.

"The survival of the United States of America as we know it is at risk," Gore said.

In a speech at Washington's Constitution Hall, Gore touched on an array of the nation's current woes, saying the economic, environmental and national security crises are all related.

"I don't remember a time in our country when so many things seemed to be going so wrong simultaneously," Gore said.

To begin to fix all the problems, Gore said, "the answer is to end our reliance on carbon-based fuels."

Gore called on the country to produce all of its electricity from renewable and carbon-free sources in 10 years, a goal he compared to President Kennedy's challenge for the country to put a man on the moon in the 1960s.

Gore chastised those who have proposed opening new areas for oil drilling as a solution to U.S. energy problems.

"It is only a truly dysfunctional system that would buy into the perverse logic that the short-term answer to high gasoline prices is drilling for more oil 10 years from now," Gore said.

New demand from places like China means oil supplies won't be able to meet increasing demand, Gore said.

"The way to bring gas prices down is to end our dependence on oil and use the renewable sources that can give us the equivalent of $1 a gallon gasoline," the former vice president and Nobel laureate said.

After losing the presidential election to then-Texas Gov. George Bush in 2000, Gore returned to the nation's political main stage with "An Inconvenient Truth," a documentary film detailing global warming's effects on the planet, in 2006. The widely acclaimed film went on to win an Academy Award for best documentary in 2007.

In the movie, Gore explains how the levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have grown exponentially in the last few decades and how that has lead to changes in the Earth's climate, such as shrinking polar ice caps and an increase in the number of hurricanes and other violent storms.

To counteract the effects of global warming, Gore has pushed for polices that would reduce the emission of carbon dioxide, such as greater energy conservation and the development of alternative energy sources like wind and solar energy. Gore has also advocated for governments to tax the emission of carbon dioxide.

Gore and the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for increasing awareness of the climate change issue and for advocating for policies that could potentially offset the effects of global warming.

Gore's return to the political arena has drawn increased scrutiny, particularly of his energy use. In 2007, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research chastised Gore for "extravagant energy use" at his Nashville, Tennessee, mansion.

Gore subsequently has installed solar panels, compact fluorescent light bulbs and other energy-saving technologies in his home.

The problem with Gore's comparison is that Kennedy asked a government agency to solve a seemingly unsolvable problem. Gore is asking several HUNDRED MILLION people to make lifestyle changes. One is improbable but not impossible. The other is foolish. I'll let you decide which is which.

"It is only a truly dysfunctional person that would buy into the perverse logic that the short-term answer to high gasoline prices is not using oil 10 years from now," Sactoking said.

This guy, like Jimmy Carter, just needs to go away. Noble ends do not justify stupid means.
 
Originally posted by: sactoking

The problem with Gore's comparison is that Kennedy asked a government agency to solve a seemingly unsolvable problem. Gore is asking several HUNDRED MILLION people to make lifestyle changes. One is improbable but not impossible. The other is foolish. I'll let you decide which is which...

The benefits of spending up to over 5 percent of our federal budget on Apollo were the achievement and scientific progress of putting a man on the moon.

The rewards of developing alternative energy sources, of mitigating climate change harm, are probably much higher, but we spend a fraction of what we spent on Apollo.

This guy, like Jimmy Carter, just needs to go away.

Yes, it's Jimmy Carter, not the presidents before and after him, who need to 'go away'.

Reagan's de-funding of energy research is much better than Carter's funding it.
 
I'm completely supportive of some type of "Manhattan Project" for alternate energy sources. I think less consumptive lifestyle changes are necessary to be good stewards of our resources.

But we also have to recognize that we need to increase domestic oil production also, and I'm certainly not sold on "carbon-free" energy as some godsend to an overpopulated planet. I also want alernate energy so that the middle east can drink oil and eat sand, I want to stop funding that armpit of the world.
 
We won't have much of a choice about this one: As more and more countries develop their economies, they will use more and more oil. There will be less to go around. There simply won't be enough oil for everyone. What are we supposed to do? Cry foul? Start a war? Complain about Al Gore?

The real problem is not about gasoline prices. They are just a symptom.

Question: Is pumping more oil a feasible short term solution? No.

Question: Is pumping more oil a meaningful long term solution? No.

Question: Is it possible that significant investment in renewable energy would result in significant returns on that investment in the short term? Absolutely. And the long term? You bet.

Of course, you could always bet on the doomed horse...AKA oil.




 
Originally posted by: alchemize
I'm completely supportive of some type of "Manhattan Project" for alternate energy sources. I think less consumptive lifestyle changes are necessary to be good stewards of our resources.

But we also have to recognize that we need to increase domestic oil production also, and I'm certainly not sold on "carbon-free" energy as some godsend to an overpopulated planet. I also want alernate energy so that the middle east can drink oil and eat sand, I want to stop funding that armpit of the world.

I agree on all counts. :thumbsup:
 
Originally posted by: Craig234
The benefits of spending up to over 5 percent of our federal budget on Apollo were the achievement and scientific progress of putting a man on the moon.

The rewards of developing alternative energy sources, of mitigating climate change harm, are probably much higher, but we spend a fraction of what we spent on Apollo.

Yes, it's Jimmy Carter, not the presidents before and after him, who need to 'go away'.

Reagan's de-funding of energy research is much better than Carter's funding it.

Benefits, schmenefits. The point is that Apollo was difficult but attainable. An Apollo-style "green energy" dream is just a pipe dream. Are you telling me that the hundreds of millions of people who can't even handle a switch to digital TV will be able to handle a total elimination of fossil fuels? That's foolish.

And yes, Jimmy Carter does need to go away more than Reagan, HW Bush, and Bill. Reagan has passed on, and HW and Bill aren't nearly as meddlesome as Jimmy Carter. He was a terrible president while in office and all he does now in undermine US and global interests. Al Gore is not far behind. They need to face the fact that they're no longer relevant to the world.
 
Why is it that every thread about alternative energy or global warming or whatever comes down to "I don't have any answers, but I sure do hate Al Gore!"? Whether or not you personally like the guy, the fact is that he has a point...and he's one of the only people talking about it. The energy problems facing us in the coming years are treated like we treat most of our other problems...we uncomfortably acknowledge there might be an issue, then quickly change the topic and hope the problem goes away.
 
Gore called on the country to produce all of its electricity from renewable and carbon-free sources in 10 years

Al Gore needs to STFU.

He's got the priorities all wrong.

He's talking about dedicating our resources to moving off coal.

No!

First we need to get off oil.

The high price of oil/gas is draining our nations wealth/money and killing our economy. Developing and migrating to non-coal electrical power generation is going to take a lot of money. It would be stupid to continue paying (ME countries) for oil, and at the same time try to convert electrical power production.

First, we need to get off oil. We save a lot of money, then we can invest in alt tech to replace coal.

Coal is not a financial problem for us, it is a CO2 problem. Oil is both a financial problem AND CO2 problem.

Fern
 
Originally posted by: sactoking

The problem with Gore's comparison is that Kennedy asked a government agency to solve a seemingly unsolvable problem. Gore is asking several HUNDRED MILLION people to make lifestyle changes. One is improbable but not impossible. The other is foolish. I'll let you decide which is which.

No, killing the planet that supports human life is foolish... just like all the GW deniers.

This guy, like Jimmy Carter, just needs to go away. Noble ends do not justify stupid means.

Carter hasn't "gone away," but he's a hell of a lot more of a human being than your Traitor In Chief. I'll listen to him over Bush or McShame any time.
 
There are a lot of sick fucks in the country who hate Al Gore. Every time they see him they are reminded of the tremendous disaster they caused by voting for Bush. Al Gore makes them feel how badly they fucked their own country and everything they supposedly love. You can't remind people they are blind stupid assholes without them hating you. If fact, the guilt is so great it is accompanied by tremendous denial. Many an asshole who voted for the disaster still pretend they were right. Who can blame them. Not many have the courage to admit they are fools.
 
Originally posted by: Fern
Gore called on the country to produce all of its electricity from renewable and carbon-free sources in 10 years

Al Gore needs to STFU.

He's got the priorities all wrong.

He's talking about dedicating our resources to moving off coal.

No!

First we need to get off oil.

The high price of oil/gas is draining our nations wealth/money and killing our economy. Developing and migrating to non-coal electrical power generation is going to take a lot of money. It would be stupid to continue paying (ME countries) for oil, and at the same time try to convert electrical power production.

First, we need to get off oil. We save a lot of money, then we can invest in alt tech to replace coal.

Coal is not a financial problem for us, it is a CO2 problem. Oil is both a financial problem AND CO2 problem.

Fern

I agree we must get off oil immediately.

Who cares if we pollute the piss out of the planet with coal. We reduced our carbon foot print and what did we get for it? A royal screwing in the ass.

Use coal like crazy till we get Nuclear and every other alternative energy up to full speed.
 
anyone know how much is spent, both public and private, on alternative energy research/development in the US on an annual basis?

lunar landings looks like it was about $100 billion in current dollars, which really isn't much compared to the fedeeral budget. spread out over a decade and it isn't much at all.
 
Originally posted by: sactoking
Originally posted by: Craig234
The benefits of spending up to over 5 percent of our federal budget on Apollo were the achievement and scientific progress of putting a man on the moon.

The rewards of developing alternative energy sources, of mitigating climate change harm, are probably much higher, but we spend a fraction of what we spent on Apollo.

Yes, it's Jimmy Carter, not the presidents before and after him, who need to 'go away'.

Reagan's de-funding of energy research is much better than Carter's funding it.

Benefits, schmenefits. The point is that Apollo was difficult but attainable. An Apollo-style "green energy" dream is just a pipe dream. Are you telling me that the hundreds of millions of people who can't even handle a switch to digital TV will be able to handle a total elimination of fossil fuels? That's foolish.

Well, since you like programs that are more 'attainable', and don't care about benefits, you should love the $1 trillion "put a man on the Washington Monument" project.

And yes, Jimmy Carter does need to go away more than Reagan, HW Bush, and Bill. Reagan has passed on, and HW and Bill aren't nearly as meddlesome as Jimmy Carter. He was a terrible president while in office and all he does now in undermine US and global interests. Al Gore is not far behind. They need to face the fact that they're no longer relevant to the world.

Or they are far more relevant than the other ex-presidents you mention, and it's you that's irrelevant with your bury your head in the sand opposition to addressing the nation's issues.

Saying Al Gore is 'irrelevant' for leading the charge on climate change is so perversely wrong that it's like saying JFK was irrelevant to the Moon Landing.
 
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Why is it that every thread about alternative energy or global warming or whatever comes down to "I don't have any answers, but I sure do hate Al Gore!"?

GDS (Gore Derangement Syndrome)
 
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Why is it that every thread about alternative energy or global warming or whatever comes down to "I don't have any answers, but I sure do hate Al Gore!"?

GDS (Gore Derangement Syndrome)

yup
 
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Why is it that every thread about alternative energy or global warming or whatever comes down to "I don't have any answers, but I sure do hate Al Gore!"? Whether or not you personally like the guy, the fact is that he has a point...and he's one of the only people talking about it. The energy problems facing us in the coming years are treated like we treat most of our other problems...we uncomfortably acknowledge there might be an issue, then quickly change the topic and hope the problem goes away.

The really sad part is that everyone is so far left or right that the common sense solution will never happen.

We will not stop consuming oil soon. We can drastically reduce the amount of oil we consume but we will still consume plenty. It simply makes good common sense to keep the money that WILL be spent on oil in the US as much as possible (not to mention providing jobs, royalties, taxes etc).

At the same damn time we should be investing as much as possible into moving away from oil as a transportation fuel. Here is an idea, take the increased royalties from the oil companies and throw it into the alternative research kitty. Win/Win

For once can't both sides compromise and implement BOTH of their plans?
 
Originally posted by: ElFenix
anyone know how much is spent, both public and private, on alternative energy research/development in the US on an annual basis?

lunar landings looks like it was about $100 billion in current dollars, which really isn't much compared to the fedeeral budget. spread out over a decade and it isn't much at all.

100 Billion a YEAR would be a relatively small amount, 100 billion over 10 years is laughable.
 
Considering we'll probably spend well over $500 billion on imported crude alone in 2008, I'd have no problem throwing at least a few trillion at alternative energy over the next few decades.
 
March 16, 2007

Department of Energy Submits $23.6 Billion Spending Plan to Congress for FY?07
WASHINGTON, DC ? U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today submitted the Department?s $23.598 billion spending plan to Congress for Fiscal Year (FY) 2007, a $45 million (0.2%) increase over the FY?07 request, as a result of the FY?07 Continuing Resolution. The spending plan will allow DOE to continue making marked progress in achieving President Bush?s goal of bringing more clean energy sources to market to help cut dependence on fossil fuels, increasing our energy and economic security and boosting competitiveness. The Continuing Resolution, signed by President Bush on February 15, required that a spending plan be submitted to Congress within 30 days of enactment.

The FY?07 spending plan emphasizes investment in alternative fuel technologies, as put forth in President Bush?s American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) and Advanced Energy Initiative (AEI), announced in his 2006 State of the Union Address. The ACI will increase federal investment in critical research to ensure that the U.S. continues to lead the world in scientific innovation, and provide American children with a strong foundation in math and science. The AEI seeks to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels by changing the way we power our nation.

This plan also allocates resources that will contribute to President Bush?s Twenty in Ten Initiative, which builds upon the President?s AEI by seeking to reduce U.S. gasoline consumption by twenty percent in ten years. This bold proposal - extraordinary because it requests Congress mandate a fuels standard to require 35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative fuels in 2017 - will help to more aggressively confront climate change and leave Americans less reliant on imported energy, particularly nations that are hostile to the United States.

Highlights

DOE?s spending plan includes $1.5 billion for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. This boost in funding shows strong support for the AEI, and expands key programs that focus on developing new energy choices, notably biomass and solar; vehicle technologies and; building codes and appliance standards. DOE?s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), located in Golden, Colorado, should also receive a major boost. NREL serves as DOE?s primary laboratory for renewable energy and energy efficiency research and development. Targeted increases at NREL include $20 million for its biorefinery researching ethanol; $16 million for advanced thin-film photovoltaic manufacturing equipment to reduce the cost of solar panels; and $63 million to build a research facility on the campus.

This plan also reflects the President?s $2 billion commitment to clean coal technologies. This funding supports the development and demonstration of a balanced portfolio of key technologies in strategic coal research programs aimed at near-zero emissions, including carbon emissions. Research for carbon sequestration, a 55 percent increase to $100 million - lays the foundation for expediting the start of projects involving large scale CO2 injection field tests. It supports the development and demonstration of a balanced portfolio of key technologies in strategic coal research programs aimed at near-zero emissions, including carbon emissions. A significant increase in carbon sequestration research, laying the foundation to allow for the environmental sustainability of clean coal in the future in a carbon constrained economy, while ensuring that coal remains part of the strategic domestic energy resources.

The Office of Science?s $3.8 billion allocation incorporates full funding for the President?s initiative on fusion energy, funds most user facilities at near optimum levels, and permits making awards for three bioenergy research centers, DOE?s Office of Science is the single largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences in the nation and helps ensure U.S. world leadership across a broad range of scientific disciplines.

The Office of Environmental Management will receive a $358 million increase to further DOE?s commitment to safe cleanup of our Cold War-era nuclear facilities. Over half of this funding is for the long-term stewardship of DOE sites safely closed in FY?06 including Rocky Flats, Fernald, Columbus and Ashtabula sites. This plan will further DOE?s progress in cleaning up liquid tank waste, solid waste, and special nuclear material, and in remediating soil and groundwater contamination across the DOE complex.

In pursuit of making nuclear energy a more integral part of our nation?s energy mix, the Office of Nuclear Energy?s NP 2010 program is fully funded at $80.3 million, allowing the Department to accelerate the engineering scope associated with the final designs. In addition, $167.5 million will be available for the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative, enabling ongoing research and development, technology development, and industry engagement activities critical to inform a Secretarial decision on the GNEP path forward in June 2008.

The Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management will spend $445.7 M in FY?07 and will perform the critical path activities needed to produce a high quality License Application for submittal to the NRC no later than June 30, 2008. This includes completing certification of the License Support Network and the draft YM supplemental environmental impact statement.

Under the full-year Continuing Resolution, Congress provided DOE with $7 million to fund the operation of its Loan Guarantee Office, and authority to issue guarantees for up to $4 billion in loans.
 
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
All the great Republicans of modern time achieved their vaunted status by being brain dead.

All the great Republicans of modern times lived in other times. :laugh:

Think Lincoln.
 
I'm all for doing whatever is reasonable to find alternative energy sources. If I was a betting man I'd put my money on the private sector having a greater impact, but having both the private and public sectors working on the problem can't hurt.

But, I don't see how leaving oil in the ground does anybody any good.
 
If Newt Gingrich had said this what would people's reaction be? Al Gore, for whatever reason, is a lightning rod of opinions.

Everything he's said is completely true - but because it's him they are going to bicker back and forth.

"An Apollo-style "green energy" dream is just a pipe dream"

Why is that a pipe-dream? You are going to tell me that with a few hundred billion we can't come up with a unified engine standard that is great more fuel efficient than our current engines are?
 
Originally posted by: NeoV
If Newt Gingrich had said this what would people's reaction be? Al Gore, for whatever reason, is a lightning rod of opinions.

Everything he's said is completely true - but because it's him they are going to bicker back and forth.

"An Apollo-style "green energy" dream is just a pipe dream"

Why is that a pipe-dream? You are going to tell me that with a few hundred billion we can't come up with a unified engine standard that is great more fuel efficient than our current engines are?

Replacing 100% of our energy infrastructure in 10 years is the very definition of pipe dream.
 
Back
Top