just fyi, in case you haven't seen this - sounds good to me

THE NEW YORK TIMES
Op-Ed Contributor
The Climate for Change
By AL GORE 
Published: November 9, 2008 

The inspiring and transformative choice by the American people to elect Barack 
Obama as our 44th president lays the foundation for another fateful choice that 
he -- and we -- must make this January to begin an emergency rescue of human 
civilization from the imminent and rapidly growing threat posed by the climate 
crisis. 

The electrifying redemption of America's revolutionary declaration that all 
human beings are born equal sets the stage for the renewal of United States 
leadership in a world that desperately needs to protect its primary endowment: 
the integrity and livability of the planet. 

The world authority on the climate crisis, the Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change, after 20 years of detailed study and four unanimous reports, 
now says that the evidence is "unequivocal." To those who are still tempted to 
dismiss the increasingly urgent alarms from scientists around the world, ignore 
the melting of the north polar ice cap and all of the other apocalyptic 
warnings from the planet itself, and who roll their eyes at the very mention of 
this existential threat to the future of the human species, please wake up. Our 
children and grandchildren need you to hear and recognize the truth of our 
situation, before it is too late. 

Here is the good news: the bold steps that are needed to solve the climate 
crisis are exactly the same steps that ought to be taken in order to solve the 
economic crisis and the energy security crisis. 

Economists across the spectrum -- including Martin Feldstein and Lawrence 
Summers -- agree that large and rapid investments in a jobs-intensive 
infrastructure initiative is the best way to revive our economy in a quick and 
sustainable way. Many also agree that our economy will fall behind if we 
continue spending hundreds of billions of dollars on foreign oil every year. 
Moreover, national security experts in both parties agree that we face a 
dangerous strategic vulnerability if the world suddenly loses access to Middle 
Eastern oil. 

As Abraham Lincoln said during America's darkest hour, "The occasion is piled 
high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, 
so we must think anew, and act anew." In our present case, thinking anew 
requires discarding an outdated and fatally flawed definition of the problem we 
face. 

Thirty-five years ago this past week, President Richard Nixon created Project 
Independence, which set a national goal that, within seven years, the United 
States would develop "the potential to meet our own energy needs without 
depending on any foreign energy sources." His statement came three weeks after 
the Arab oil embargo had sent prices skyrocketing and woke America to the 
dangers of dependence on foreign oil. And -- not coincidentally -- it came only 
three years after United States domestic oil production had peaked. 

At the time, the United States imported less than a third of its oil from 
foreign countries. Yet today, after all six of the presidents succeeding Nixon 
repeated some version of his goal, our dependence has doubled from one-third to 
nearly two-thirds -- and many feel that global oil production is at or near its 
peak. 

Some still see this as a problem of domestic production. If we could only 
increase oil and coal production at home, they argue, then we wouldn't have to 
rely on imports from the Middle East. Some have come up with even dirtier and 
more expensive new ways to extract the same old fuels, like coal liquids, oil 
shale, tar sands and "clean coal" technology. 

But in every case, the resources in question are much too expensive or 
polluting, or, in the case of "clean coal," too imaginary to make a difference 
in protecting either our national security or the global climate. Indeed, those 
who spend hundreds of millions promoting "clean coal" technology consistently 
omit the fact that there is little investment and not a single large-scale 
demonstration project in the United States for capturing and safely burying all 
of this pollution. If the coal industry can make good on this promise, then I'm 
all for it. But until that day comes, we simply cannot any longer base the 
strategy for human survival on a cynical and self-interested illusion. 

Here's what we can do -- now: we can make an immediate and large strategic 
investment to put people to work replacing 19th-century energy technologies 
that depend on dangerous and expensive carbon-based fuels with 21st-century 
technologies that use fuel that is free forever: the sun, the wind and the 
natural heat of the earth. 

What follows is a five-part plan to repower America with a commitment to 
producing 100 percent of our electricity from carbon-free sources within 10 
years. It is a plan that would simultaneously move us toward solutions to the 
climate crisis and the economic crisis -- and create millions of new jobs that 
cannot be outsourced. 

First, the new president and the new Congress should offer large-scale 
investment in incentives for the construction of concentrated solar thermal 
plants in the Southwestern deserts, wind farms in the corridor stretching from 
Texas to the Dakotas and advanced plants in geothermal hot spots that could 
produce large amounts of electricity. 

Second, we should begin the planning and construction of a unified national 
smart grid for the transport of renewable electricity from the rural places 
where it is mostly generated to the cities where it is mostly used. New 
high-voltage, low-loss underground lines can be designed with "smart" features 
that provide consumers with sophisticated information and easy-to-use tools for 
conserving electricity, eliminating inefficiency and reducing their energy 
bills. The cost of this modern grid -- $400 billion over 10 years -- pales in 
comparison with the annual loss to American business of $120 billion due to the 
cascading failures that are endemic to our current balkanized and antiquated 
electricity lines. 

Third, we should help America's automobile industry (not only the Big Three but 
the innovative new startup companies as well) to convert quickly to plug-in 
hybrids that can run on the renewable electricity that will be available as the 
rest of this plan matures. In combination with the unified grid, a nationwide 
fleet of plug-in hybrids would also help to solve the problem of electricity 
storage. Think about it: with this sort of grid, cars could be charged during 
off-peak energy-use hours; during peak hours, when fewer cars are on the road, 
they could contribute their electricity back into the national grid. 

Fourth, we should embark on a nationwide effort to retrofit buildings with 
better insulation and energy-efficient windows and lighting. Approximately 40 
percent of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States come from buildings -- 
and stopping that pollution saves money for homeowners and businesses. This 
initiative should be coupled with the proposal in Congress to help Americans 
who are burdened by mortgages that exceed the value of their homes. 

Fifth, the United States should lead the way by putting a price on carbon here 
at home, and by leading the world's efforts to replace the Kyoto treaty next 
year in Copenhagen with a more effective treaty that caps global carbon dioxide 
emissions and encourages nations to invest together in efficient ways to reduce 
global warming pollution quickly, including by sharply reducing deforestation. 

Of course, the best way -- indeed the only way -- to secure a global agreement 
to safeguard our future is by re-establishing the United States as the country 
with the moral and political authority to lead the world toward a solution. 

Looking ahead, I have great hope that we will have the courage to embrace the 
changes necessary to save our economy, our planet and ultimately ourselves. 

In an earlier transformative era in American history, President John F. Kennedy 
challenged our nation to land a man on the moon within 10 years. Eight years 
and two months later, Neil Armstrong set foot on the lunar surface. The average 
age of the systems engineers cheering on Apollo 11 from the Houston control 
room that day was 26, which means that their average age when President Kennedy 
announced the challenge was 18. 

This year similarly saw the rise of young Americans, whose enthusiasm 
electrified Barack Obama's campaign. There is little doubt that this same group 
of energized youth will play an essential role in this project to secure our 
national future, once again turning seemingly impossible goals into inspiring 
success. 

Al Gore, the vice president from 1993 to 2001, was the co-recipient of the 
Nobel Peace Prize in 2007. He founded the Alliance for Climate Protection and, 
as a businessman, invests in alternative energy companies. 

View online: 
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/09/opinion/09gore.html?partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

LEVEL GREEN - fostering sustainable community through collaborative initiatives 
in hospitality, education and the arts, in the 150 year-old democratic  spirit 
of the Danish Folk School. 1519 Slaterville Road, Ithaca, NY 14850 (607) 
339-9472


      
_______________________________________________
For more information about sustainability in the Tompkins County area, please 
visit:  http://www.sustainabletompkins.org/ 

RSS, archives, subscription & listserv information for:
[email protected]
http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainabletompkins
free hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org

Reply via email to