Energy crisis threatens U.S. survival, Gore says

[Arkitech]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
It makes no difference whether it takes 10 years or twenty or longer. The time it will take is a matter of will.

We have had warnings as to the insane nature of using oil for 50 years easily. What has kept us on oil is the greed and stupidity of our leaders and the apathy and ignorance of the American people.

Gore mentioned that enough sun falls on the earth in forty minutes to run the world for a year.

If we were a serious people we would be talking of little else. The best minds in the country would be meeting constantly to devise the fastest renewable way to energy independence and education to doctorate in these fields would be free.

That's the most sensible thing said in this post so far.

Technology has enhanced everything from medicine to food production to communication methods. But why is it after many decades energy technology has remained in the same stage since decades ago? Greed.

If people would stop the pointless arguing about who makes the suggestions on changing our energy needs or baseless speculations on how long it will take to change these things out then perhaps attention can be focused on what's most important.

 

[IGBT]

..look thru the fog and you'll see a racketter speculating on the futures of his emission trading grift. you can expect him to keep the alarmist gloom and doom drum beat going at your expense for his personal gain.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: IGBT
..look thru the fog and you'll see a racketter speculating on the futures of his emission trading grift. you can expect him to keep the alarmist gloom and doom drum beat going at your expense for his personal gain.

The way the Muslim nations are using us, it could be for our personal gain.

Various people may have various reasons for wanting to get off oil. That doesn?t mean we cannot work together to achieve our common goal.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: Queasy
It starts with you Al, it starts with you

We're back from Al Gore's big global warming speech, and boy did we have a great time! We had a dedicated band of taxpayer advocates out in force, pointing out the high economic cost of global warming alarmism - starting with $8 a gallon gasoline.

Of course, we saw plenty of hypocrisy -- especially the fact that Gore didn't ride his bike or take public transporation to the event. He didn't even take his Prius! Instead, he brought a fleet of two Lincoln Town Cars and a Chevy Suburban SUV! Even worse, the driver of the Town Car that eventually whisked away Gore's wife and daughter left the engine idling and the AC cranking for 20 minutes before they finally left!

Check it out in our video from the scene:

click through for the video

algore HAS to do that to spread the message.

HOW DARE YOU IMPLY HE IS A HYPOCRITE!!!!!!

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Arkitech

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
It makes no difference whether it takes 10 years or twenty or longer. The time it will take is a matter of will.

We have had warnings as to the insane nature of using oil for 50 years easily. What has kept us on oil is the greed and stupidity of our leaders and the apathy and ignorance of the American people.

Gore mentioned that enough sun falls on the earth in forty minutes to run the world for a year.

If we were a serious people we would be talking of little else. The best minds in the country would be meeting constantly to devise the fastest renewable way to energy independence and education to doctorate in these fields would be free.

That's the most sensible thing said in this post so far.
No, disagree because he *mixes* the oil and power generation issues in his remarks

Technology has enhanced everything from medicine to food production to communication methods. But why is it after many decades energy technology has remained in the same stage since decades ago? Greed.
Energy tech has improved

If people would stop the pointless arguing about who makes the suggestions on changing our energy needs or baseless speculations on how long it will take to change these things out then perhaps attention can be focused on what's most important.

What I think is most important is that people attain the understanding that oil (transportation) and coal (power generation) are two SEPERATE issues.

The only thing they have in common at this point is CO2 concerns.

Our electrical power costs have not risen any where near that of oil.

Global oil supplies are running out (or at least that is the perception), coal is available in abundance. There is no pressing need to move off coal (for power).

The money spent on electrical power stays HERE in the USA, oil goes abroad. The latter is a problem at several levels - devaluation of our currency, debt & inflation, and the radical Islamic regimes supported by those funds.

The alt tech solutions and government policy required for each is completely different.

So, IMO, the most important thing we can attain at this point in time is clear and widespread recognition that these are two completely different problems, each to be solved in their own unique way and that oil must be solved first.

Fern

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Arkitech

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
It makes no difference whether it takes 10 years or twenty or longer. The time it will take is a matter of will.

We have had warnings as to the insane nature of using oil for 50 years easily. What has kept us on oil is the greed and stupidity of our leaders and the apathy and ignorance of the American people.

Gore mentioned that enough sun falls on the earth in forty minutes to run the world for a year.

If we were a serious people we would be talking of little else. The best minds in the country would be meeting constantly to devise the fastest renewable way to energy independence and education to doctorate in these fields would be free.

That's the most sensible thing said in this post so far.
No, disagree because he *mixes* the oil and power generation issues in his remarks

Technology has enhanced everything from medicine to food production to communication methods. But why is it after many decades energy technology has remained in the same stage since decades ago? Greed.
Energy tech has improved

If people would stop the pointless arguing about who makes the suggestions on changing our energy needs or baseless speculations on how long it will take to change these things out then perhaps attention can be focused on what's most important.

What I think is most important is that people attain the understanding that oil (transportation) and coal (power generation) are two SEPERATE issues.

The only thing they have in common at this point is CO2 concerns.

Our electrical power costs have not risen any where near that of oil.

Global oil supplies are running out (or at least that is the perception), coal is available in abundance. There is no pressing need to move off coal (for power).

The money spent on electrical power stays HERE in the USA, oil goes abroad. The latter is a problem at several levels - devaluation of our currency, debt & inflation, and the radical Islamic regimes supported by those funds.

The alt tech solutions and government policy required for each is completely different.

So, IMO, the most important thing we can attain at this point in time is clear and widespread recognition that these are two completely different problems, each to be solved in their own unique way and that oil must be solved first.

Fern

Wat wubbish. Da solution to da electric problem is da solution to da gas problem and da solution is da sun.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
-snip-
Wat wubbish. Da solution to da electric problem is da solution to da gas problem and da solution is da sun.

Nope, not yet.

We're still waiting for the right car "battery". I know it's rumoured to be appearing next year. But it ain't here yet.

Until is does arrive and is placed in broad use (requiring the infrastructure build -out etc), confusing the two - power and transportation - is a mistake.

Fern

 

[woodie1]

Originally posted by: Pabster
<Yawn>

Gore is desperately trying to remain relevant. He's doing a piss-poor job.

Couldn't have said it better.

 

[OokiiNeko]

Simple things like planting the right types of trees next to buildings can reduce the energy footprint of the structure by 25% or so. The lack of awareness among architects regarding "green architecture" really bothers me. Most people don't realize that buildings consume more energy overall than vehicles. The technology we are using in construction in North America is by and large archaic in comparison with what is happening in parts of Europe.

THIS bears repeating.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: hellod9
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.

1) Yes
2) Yes
3) Maybe. Or it could be $ down the drain. Is it worth a shot? Yes.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
-snip-
Wat wubbish. Da solution to da electric problem is da solution to da gas problem and da solution is da sun.

Nope, not yet.

We're still waiting for the right car "battery". I know it's rumoured to be appearing next year. But it ain't here yet.

Until is does arrive and is placed in broad use (requiring the infrastructure build -out etc), confusing the two - power and transportation - is a mistake.

Fern

You are full of hot air, or your car could be. If electricity were available if vast quantities and cheap we could power cars with air or hydrogen. Either of these would be a real gas.

 

[Jiggz]

Originally posted by: Robor

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?

Exactly. If this was said by anyone on the 'right' the critics here would be applauding the motivation if not the time frame. Instead all we hear is how Gore is a hypocrite, self-promoter, windbag, etc. Perfect example:

Originally posted by: Jiggz
Absolutely correct! Like exploiting the typhoon victims in Myanmar and spreading FUD about global warming to advance his personal goals! Conserve, he said, then flew solo on a commercial jet to get his Nobel Prize! I can still remember him telling the world on how he invented the Internet! For some reasons, the only time I see or hear from this person is when a crisis is in progress; and that's because when exploitation is perfectly timed! What a pathetic loser!

It's never about the "right" or the "left", it's about Gore! Preaching all about global warming and energy conservation and yet he's the biggest violator of his own preaching! If that is not hypocrisy then the audience must by duds!