Dedicated to the balanced discussion of global warming
carbon offset / trading greenhouse kyoto climate model Inconvenient Truth bio fuel ipcc Glacier

Gore Delivers Remarks on Energy and the Climate

Washington Post – July 17, 2008

Mr. Al Gore recently gave a speech in Washington DC regarding energy.  While many in the blogosphere will call Mr. Gore “Pope Gore” and refer to environmentalists as a religion, in this case, I don’t think that Mr. Gore makes many of the outlandish comments which I have chastised him about. Most of his comments are regarding energy independence, the status of the technology of alternative fuels, and the balance of power.

He does make a few global warming references which are a little hard to defend. He implies that the fires in California are caused by manmade global warming – this is probably not true since California has been enjoying an unusually wet climate for several decades and it appears that this current drought is simply going back to status quo.

He also makes claims that the North Pole has a 75% chance of being ice free this summer.  While all of the odds that I have seen are 50%, I won’t quibble about that as I am sure someone has given different odds.  Las Vegas thrives on the fact that anyone can announce and believe in different odds of something occurring. There is considerable evidence though that the ice cap is melting due to changing winds and changing ocean currents which probably are not impacted by air temperature changes caused by man.

A very good friend of mine supports the efforts of Mr. Gore, not because of he believes in manmade global warming so much but he thinks we need to break the reliance on oil from the Mideast. It seems that Mr. Gore must have talked to my friend over the last few days since that is almost exactly the tact he is currently taking in this speech.  While I want to break the yoke of foreign oil as much as the next person, I don’t think that doing this by claiming manmade global warming is the right tactic.  Eliminating foreign oil from our energy diet just makes good national defense sense and we should do it based on its own merit not another argument that is harder to make.

Mr. Gore is really pushing solar energy in this speech.  I don’t believe that solar energy technology is quite as developed as he is implying.  I don’t think that the chip manufacturers are anywhere close to producing enough chips to take over 100% of the US energy needs.  In fact, my gut is that they would be stretching their capability to deliver 10% of that need. If we want to be truly energy independent in 10 years, we must discuss and accelerate other forms of energy such as nuclear and hydrogen.

It is my understanding that this speech is part of the public record and therefore I can reproduce it in full here without worrying of violating the copyright of the Washington Post.  In that spirit and with full thanks to the Washington Post, here is the speech that Mr. Gore gave.


FORMER VICE PRESIDENT ALBERT GORE JR.: Thank you. Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen.

And Congressman Sherry Boehlert, thank you for your leadership of the Science and Technology Committee and for your work on the Alliance for Climate Protection.

And thank you, Cathy Zoi, the CEO of the Alliance for Climate Protection.

I’m so happy that all of you are here. I’m especially happy that my wife, Tipper, is here and my daughter, Karenna, is here. Thank you.


And there are several members of Congress, even though the committees are working and the Congress is meeting, but I want to acknowledge Senator Bernie Sanders, who is here, Congressman Jim Cooper, Congressman Jay Inslee, former Senator Jim Sasser, and Mary Sasser.

I want to say a special word of thanks to my friend,, who came all the way from Los Angeles to be here. Thank you so much.


And, also, I want to make special mention of the presence of the Libertarian Party’s presidential candidate, Bob Barr. We’ve had a number of conversations.

I’m grateful for your presence, Congressman Barr.


And thank you very much — thank you very much, Bob. We’ve had a number of very, very interesting conversations. I appreciate your open mind and your serious approach to this challenge our country is facing.

I have — have had many conversations, of course, with Senator Obama and with Senator McCain. And one of my objectives in approaching this climate crisis is to try to lift this as much as possible out of the partisan framework that sometimes is a serious impediment to solving serious problems in our country.

Incidentally, I did also want to make special mention of the fact that some of our mutual friends are in mourning today. And I want to extend my best wishes to the family of Tony Snow, whose memorial service just ended a short time ago. And we are keeping his family in our thoughts and prayers.

Ladies and gentlemen, there are times in the history of our nation when our very way of life depends upon dispelling illusions and awakening to the challenge of a present danger.

In such moments, we are called upon to move quickly and boldly and shake off complacency, throw aside old habits and rise, clear-eyed and alert, to the necessity of making big changes. Those who, for whatever reason, refuse to do their part in such times must either be persuaded to join the effort or asked to step aside. This is such a moment. The survival of the United States of America as we know it is at risk. And even more, if more should be required, the future of human civilization is at stake.

I do not remember a time in our country when so many things seemed to be going so wrong simultaneously.


Our economy is in terrible shape and getting worse.


People are hurting. Gasoline prices are increasing dramatically, and so are electricity rates. Jobs are being outsourced. Home mortgages are in trouble. Banks, automobile companies, other institutions we depend upon are under growing pressure.

Distinguished senior business leaders are telling us that this is just the beginning, unless we find the courage to make some major changes quickly.

The climate crisis, in particular, is getting a lot worse, much more quickly than predicted. Scientists with access to data from Navy submarines traversing underneath the north polar ice cap have warned that there is a 75 percent chance that, within only five years, the entire north polar ice cap will completely disappear during the summer months.

This will further increase the melting pressure on Greenland. According to experts, one of the largest glaciers there, the Jakobshavn Glacier, is moving at a faster rate than ever before, losing 20 million tons of ice every day. That’s equivalent to the amount of water used in a year’s time by the residents of our largest city, New York City.

Two major studies from military intelligence experts have warned our leaders about the dangerous national security implications of the climate crisis, including the possibility of hundreds of millions of climate refugees destabilizing nations around the world.

Just two days ago, 27 senior statesmen and retired military leaders warned of the national security threat from what they called an “energy tsunami” that would be triggered by a loss of our access to foreign oil. Meanwhile, the war in Iraq continues, and now the war in Afghanistan appears to be getting worse.

And, by the way, our weather sure is getting strange, isn’t it? There seem to be more tornadoes than in living memory, longer droughts, bigger downpours, and record floods. Today, unprecedented fires are burning in California and elsewhere in the American west.

Higher temperatures lead to drier vegetation that makes kindling for mega-fires of the kind that have been raging in Canada, Greece, Russia, China, South America, Australia, and Africa. Scientists in the Department of Geophysics and Planetary Science at Tel Aviv University tell us that for every one degree increase in temperature, lightning strikes will go up another 10 percent. And it is lightning, after all, that is principally responsible for igniting the conflagration in California today.

Like a lot of people, it seems to me that all these problems are bigger than any of the solutions that have thus far been proposed for them, and that’s been worrying me.

I’m convinced that one reason we have seemed to be paralyzed in the face of these crises is the tendency to offer old solutions to each crisis separately without taking the others into account. And these outdated proposals have not only been ineffective; they almost always make the other crises worse.

Yet when we look at all three of these seemingly intractable challenges at the same time, we can see the common thread running through them, deeply ironic in its simplicity: Our dangerous over- reliance on carbon-based fuels is at the core of all three of these challenges, the economic, environmental and national security crises.

We’re borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet. Every bit of that has to change.


But if — if we grab hold of that common thread and pull it hard, all of these complex problems begin to unravel and we find that we’re holding the answer to all of them right in our hand.

The answer is to end our reliance on carbon-based fuels.


In my search for genuinely effective answers to the climate crisis, I’ve held a long series of so-called “solutions summits” with engineers, scientists and CEOs.

And in those discussions, one thing has become abundantly clear: When you connect the dots, it turns out that the real solutions to the climate crisis are the very same measures that are needed to renew our economy and escape the trap of ever-rising energy prices. Moreover, they are also the very same solutions that we need to guarantee our national security without having to go to war in the Persian Gulf.

What if we could use fuels that aren’t expensive, don’t cause pollution, and are abundantly available right here at home?

We have such fuels. Scientists have confirmed that enough solar energy falls on the surface of the Earth every 40 minutes to meet 100 percent of the entire world’s energy needs for a full year. Tapping just a small portion of this solar energy could provide all of the electricity America uses. And enough wind power blows through the Midwest corridor every day to also meet 100 percent of U.S. electricity demand. Geothermal energy, similarly, is capable of providing enormous supplies of electricity for America.

The quickest, cheapest, most efficient, and best way to start using all of this renewable energy is in the production of electricity. In fact, we can start right now using solar power, wind power, and geothermal power to make electricity for our homes and businesses.

But to make this exciting potential a reality and truly solve our nation’s problems, we need a new start.

That is why I’m proposing today a strategic initiative designed to free us from the crises that are holding us down and to regain control of our own destiny. It’s not the only thing we need to do, but this strategic challenge is the lynchpin of a bold, new strategy needed to re-power America.

So today I challenge our nation to commit to producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources within 10 years.


This goal — this goal is achievable, affordable and transformative. It represents a challenge to all Americans in every walk of life, to our political leaders, entrepreneurs, innovators, engineers, and to every citizen.

A few short years ago, it would not have been possible to issue such a challenge. But here’s what’s changed: The sharp cost reductions now beginning to take place in solar, wind and geothermal power, coupled with the recent dramatic price increases for oil and coal, have radically changed the economics of energy.

When I first went to the Congress 32 years ago, I listened to experts testify that, if oil ever got to $35 a barrel, then renewable sources of energy would become competitive.

Well, today, the price of oil is over $135 a barrel. And sure enough, billions of dollars of new investment are flowing into the development of concentrated solar thermal, photovoltaics, windmills, geothermal plants, and a variety of ingenious new ways to improve our efficiency and conserve presently wasted energy.

And as the demand for renewable energy grows, the costs will continue to fall. Let me give you one revealing example: The price of the specialized silicon used to make solar cells was recently as high as $300 per kilogram, but the newest contracts have prices as low as $50 a kilogram.

You remember the same thing happened with computer chips, also made out of silicon. The price paid for the same performance came down by 50 percent every 18 months year after year, and that’s been happening for 40 years in a row.

To those who argue that we do not yet have the technology to accomplish these kinds of results with renewable energy, I ask them to come with me to meet the entrepreneurs who will drive this revolution. I’ve seen what they’re doing, and I have no doubt that we can meet this challenge.

To those who say the costs are still too high, I ask them to consider whether the costs of oil and coal will ever stop increasing if we keep relying on quickly depleting energy sources to feed a rapidly growing demand all around the world. When demand for oil and coal increases, their price goes up. When demand for solar cells increases, the price often comes down. That’s the difference.


One source of fuel is expensive and going up, and the other source of fuel is free forever. When we send money to foreign countries to buy nearly 70 percent of the oil we use every day, they build new skyscrapers and we lose jobs. When we spend that money building solar arrays and windmills here, we build competitive industries and gain jobs here at home.


Of course, there are those who will tell us that this can’t be done. Some of the voices we hear are from the defenders of the status quo, the ones with a vested interest in perpetuating the current system, no matter how high a price the rest of us will have to pay.

But even those who reap the profits of the carbon age have to recognize the inevitability of its demise. As one OPEC oil minister observed, “The Stone Age didn’t end because of a shortage of stones.”


To those who say 10 years is not enough time, I respectfully ask them to consider seriously what the world’s scientists are telling us about the risks we face if we don’t act in less than 10 years.

Those leading experts predict that we have less than 10 years to make dramatic changes in our global warming pollution, lest we lose our ability to ever recover from this environmental crisis. When the use of oil and coal goes up, pollution goes up, as it’s doing right now. But when the use of solar, wind and geothermal increases, pollution comes down.

To those who say the challenge is not politically viable, I suggest they go before the American people and try to defend the status quo, and then bear witness to the people’s appetite for dramatic change. The time is now.


I for one do not believe our country can withstand 10 more years of the status quo. Our families can’t stand 10 more years of gasoline price increases. Our workers can’t stand 10 more years of job losses and outsourcing of factories. Our economy can’t stand 10 more years of sending $2 billion every 24 hours to foreign countries for oil.

And our soldiers and their families cannot take another 10 years of repeated troop deployments to dangerous regions that just happen to have large oil supplies.


What could…


What could we do instead during these next 10 years? What should we do during the next 10 years?

Some of our greatest accomplishments as a nation have resulted from commitments to reach a goal that fell well beyond the next election: the Marshall Plan, Social Security, the interstate highway system.

A political promise to do something 40 years from now is universally ignored because everyone knows it’s totally meaningless. Ten years is about the maximum time that we as a nation can hold a steady aim and hit our target.

When President John F. Kennedy challenged our nation to land a man on the moon and bring him back safely in 10 years, many people doubted we could accomplish that goal. But eight years and two months later, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the surface of the moon and planted the American flag.


To be sure, reaching the goal of 100 percent renewable and truly clean electricity within 10 years will require us to overcome many obstacles. At present, for example, we do not have a unified national grid that is sufficiently advanced to link the areas where the sun shines and the wind blows to the cities in the east and the west that need the electricity.

Our national electric grid is critical infrastructure, as vital to the health and security of our economy as our highways and telecommunication networks.

Today, our grids are antiquated, fragile and vulnerable to cascading failure. Power outages and defects in the current grid system cost U.S. businesses more than $120 billion dollars a year. It has to be upgraded anyway.

We could further increase the value and efficiency of a unified national grid by helping our struggling auto companies switch to the manufacture of plug-in electric cars and save those auto jobs and renew our auto companies.

(APPLAUSE) An electric vehicle fleet would sharply reduce the cost of driving a car, reduce pollution, and increase the flexibility of our electricity grid.

At the same time, of course, we need to greatly improve our commitment to efficiency and conservation. That’s the best investment we can make. We can make better use of our broadband networks to save energy.

America’s transition to renewable energy sources must also include adequate provisions to assist those Americans who would unfairly face hardship. For example, we must recognize those who have toiled in dangerous conditions to bring us our present energy supply. We should guarantee good jobs in the fresh air and sunshine for any coal miner displaced by impacts on the coal industry, every single one of them.


Now, of course, we could and should speed up this transition by insisting that the price of carbon-based energy include the costs of the environmental damage that it causes. I have long supported…


… a sharp reduction in payroll taxes with the difference made up in CO-2 taxes. We should tax what we burn, not what we earn.


That’s the single most important change that we can make.

In order to foster international cooperation, it is also essential that the United States rejoin the global community and lead efforts to secure an international treaty at Copenhagen in December of next year that includes a cap on CO-2 emissions and a global partnership that recognizes the necessity of addressing the threats of extreme poverty and disease as part of the world’s agenda for solving the climate crisis.

Of course, the greatest obstacle to meeting the challenge of 100 percent renewable electricity in 10 years may be the deep dysfunction of our politics and our self-governing system as it exists today.


In recent years, our politics has tended toward incremental proposals made up of small policies designed to avoid offending special interests, alternating with occasional baby steps in the right direction. Our democracy has become sclerotic at a time when these crises require boldness.

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 in areas that should be protected. (APPLAUSE)

Am I — am I the only one who finds it strange that our government so often adopts a so-called solution that has absolutely nothing to do with the problem it’s supposed to address?


When people rightly complain about higher gasoline prices that are hurting our country, we propose to give more money to the oil companies and pretend that they’re going to bring gasoline prices down? It will do nothing of the sort, and everyone knows it.

If we keep going back to the same policies that have never, ever worked in the past and have served only to produce the highest gasoline prices in history, alongside the greatest oil company profits in history, nobody should be surprised if we get the same result over and over again.


The Congress may be poised to move in that direction anyway, because some of them are being stampeded by lobbyists for special interests that know how to make the system work for them instead of the American people.

If you want to know the truth about gasoline prices, here it is: The exploding demand for oil, especially in places like China, is completely overwhelming the rate of new discoveries by so much that oil prices are almost certain to continue upward over time, no matter what the oil companies promise. And politicians cannot bring gasoline prices down in the short term by giving more money to the oil companies.

However, there is one extremely effective way to bring the costs of driving a car way down within a few short years. The way to bring gasoline prices down is to end our dependence on oil and use the renewable sources that can give us the equivalent of $1-per-gallon gasoline. And we need to get busy creating that system now.


Many Americans have begun to wonder whether or not we’ve simply lost our appetite for bold policy solutions. And folks who claim to know how our system works these days have told us we might as well forget about our political system doing anything bold, especially if it is contrary to the wishes of special interests.

And I’ve got to admit that sure seems to be the way things have been going.

But I’ve begun to hear different voices in this country from the people who are not only tired of baby steps and special interest politics, but are hungry for a new, different, and bold approach to genuinely solve our problems. We’re on the eve of a presidential election. We’re in the midst of an international climate treaty process that will conclude its work before the end of the first year of the new president’s term.

It’s a great error to say the United States must wait for others to join us in this matter. In fact, we must move first, because that’s the key to getting others to follow. And moving first is in our own national interest.


So I ask you to join with me to call on every candidate, at every level, to accept this challenge: for America to be running on 100 percent zero-carbon electricity in 10 years. It’s time for us to move beyond empty rhetoric. We need to act now. And we need to act boldly.


This is a generational moment, a moment when we decide our own path and our collective fate. I’m asking you, each of you, to join me and build this future.

Please join the We campaign at We need you. And we need you now. We’re committed to changing not just light bulbs, but laws. And laws will only change with leadership.


On July 16, 1969, the United States of America was finally ready to meet President Kennedy’s challenge of landing Americans on the moon. I will never forget standing beside my father a few miles from the launch site, waiting for the giant Saturn V rocket to lift Apollo 11 into the sky.

I was a young man, 21 years old, who had graduated from college a month before and was enlisting in the U.S. Army three weeks later. I will never forget the inspiration of those minutes. The power and the vibration of the giant rocket’s engines shook my entire body.

As I watched the rocket rise, slowly at first and then with great speed, the sound was deafening. We craned our necks to follow its path until we were looking straight up into the air.

And then, four days later, along with hundreds of millions of others, I watched as Neil Armstrong took one small step to the surface of the moon and changed the history of the human race.

We must now lift our nation to reach another goal that will change history. Our entire civilization depends upon us now embarking on a new journey of exploration and discovery. Our success depends on our willingness as a people to undertake this journey and to complete it within 10 years. Once again, we have an opportunity to take a giant leap for humankind.

Thank you for coming. (APPLAUSE)


Did you know that you can have these articles emailed to you? Click on the Subscribe to email link in the upper right corner, fill out the details, and you are set. No one will see your email address and you won’t get more spam by doing this.

Similar articles that you may enjoy:

4 Responses to “Gore Delivers Remarks on Energy and the Climate”

  1. Sean,

    If you can read past The Goracle’s hyperbole and his overly simplistic obsession with atmospheric CO2 driven global climate change (Atmospheric CO2 is not a driver, it is a modifier.) this is a helluva good speech.

    The problems and challenges that we face as a nation and as a people are there in stark detail.

    The concern that I have is that if a problem is defined in a way that is an overly simplistic distorted caricature of the actual problem then the proposed solution will almost always be overly simplistic and the expectations for mitigating or solving the problem will be overly optimistic.

    An issue is a topic of discussion and debate. Categorically, an issue can be one of three things. It can be a problem which is something for which there is a real and workable solution; it can be a situation which can be improved and its effects mitigated but which cannot be totally eliminated; or it can be a condition which is something over which we have no control or influence in which case our only course of action is to develop a better understanding of the condition so we can then learn better ways of living with the condition.

    Even defining our energy situation as a problem may be overly optimistic. At this time, it is not possible for us to totally rule out that that our energy future is a situation or, perhaps, even a condition that we will have to learn to live with.

    Going back to horse and buggy days is not an available option, either. Just as we don’t have enough farm land to produce the corn and other crops for biofuels, neither do we have enough farm land to provide for all the horses that we would need if we intend to be able to eat ourselves. Horses eat more than people, you know. Thus it takes more productive farm land to provide for a horse than it takes to provide for a human.

    Have you noticed how it is always the availability of natural resources that establishes the parameters of the possible? Do you reckon there may be an explainable reason for that?

    I think there very well may be an explainable reason for that. After all, our technologies of all kinds actually do just one thing for us: They enable us to make indirect beneficial use of kinds of energy and sources of energy that we are not biologically able to use directly and beneficially.

    Have a wonderful day.

  2. Mr. Gore is the master of exaggeration and one of the most elitist politicians (notwithstanding one of the most hieratical people I have ever known). Whenever he opens his mouth, I cringe at how he is going to talk down to us. What does he want us to do that he will not do himself? How much are we willing to sacrifice for his vision of saving the world from man’s destruction.

    Part of his problem with Al Gore is that he is so narrow-minded that he is unwilling to view the other side of any issue. He has stated a position several decades ago and only looks for confirmation that he is right. He is always right and anyone that disagrees with him is not only wrong but ignorant and dangerous.

    Unfortunately for us all, the media and politicians and like-minded people have believed in him and his cause.

    What is dangerous is that if you tell a big lie long enough then people will believe it. Now, Mr. Gore does not believe it is a lie. I believe he truly believes that global warming is all man’s fault and he probably believes catastrophes and calamities now and in the future are the result of man.

    What Mr. Gore fails miserably in is critical thinking (looking at the facts, listening to dissent and other peoples interpretations of the facts) and economics (how badly would we damage the world economy – who would be the losers – mainly the poor).

    But back to his speech…

    Why is the US losing jobs to foreign countries? A good bit is due to US government regulations (labor and environmental), taxes, and laws. Would it get better with Mr. Gore’s plan – absolutely not.

    Gasoline prices rising? Sending money to the Middle East? That one is a no-brainer. The US government policy is specifically tailored to rely on someone else for the oil. The US doesn’t want to use their own resources. Send a couple of 100 billion dollars to unstable governments every year and watch as the value of your dollar drops. Then the price of imports (gas) to up.

    Replace all coal for electricity in 10 years? ridiculous.

    Replace every car in the US in 10 years with a non-existent car that would cost much more than today’s cars? Impossible.

    Completely redesign and rebuild the US economy in 10 years? I couldn’t write any better fiction than that.

    Climate change is bad now? You can cherry pick your catastrophes all you want, Mr. Gore. I could do the same for the rest of history.

    Oh, and what happens when the US invests trillions of dollars to solve a problem that may not be a problem (Still no one has proved that global warming is manmade. Many people have dispelled the THEORY that CO2 is the cause. – but they are the dissenters who should be punished for their crimes against nature.)

    I could go on, but my computer is warming the room up too much and the ice in my glass of water is melting. Coincidence? I have a theory about computer generated global warming….

  3. The simplest believable explanation for any phenomenon or problem, if repeated enough, will almost always become the most widely excepted common knowledge or coventional wisdom explanation for that phenomenon or problem.

    Once any real problem has been drug into a political rathole and been made into a lucrative political issue, it is virtually impossible to get the problem back out of the rathole so that it can be studied, researched and analyzed as the problem that it actually is.

    Applied simplism and ideological sound bites are the lifeblood and the heartbeat of politics. The fact that neither has content that has any real value just doesn’t matter.

    Will it get votes on election day?


    Then, by golly, that’s a good thing! Let’s keep saying it! It must be right if the voters believe it.

    Sorry, folks. I may not be the most skeptic person in the nation where global warming is concerned but I am unabashedly cynical about politics, politicians, political parties and political operatives. (Consultants, pollsters, etc.)

    I am especially cynical about elected officials who use the position to which they were elected by the rest of us as a stage from which to run for reelection instead of doing the job that they asked us to elect them to do.

  4. […] has ever heard me say that! But here we have a technology that may make solar cells live up to Mr. Gore’s challenge of several weeks ago.  Although, to be honest, if the technology is being discussed on paper and in prototypes now, […]