Gore zero-carbon proposal

This article is part of the Coal Issues portal on SourceWatch, a project of Global Energy Monitor and the Center for Media and Democracy. See here for help on adding material to CoalSwarm.

Citing the need for urgent action to avoid catastrophic climate change, former U.S. Vice-President Al Gore made a speech in Washington, D.C., on July 17, 2008, in which he proposed that the United States "commit to producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources within 10 years."^[1]

According to Gore, such a goal had become more feasible because "[t]he 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."

Gore compared the effort involved to the John F. Kennedy's challenge to reach the moon in a decade, which launched the Apollo program: "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."

Gore argued that a ten-year plan is "the maximum time that we as a nation can hold a steady aim and hit our target," whereas plans with much longer time horizons, "such as a political promise to do something 40 years from now," are "universally ignored because everyone knows it's totally meaningless."

Gore noted that upgrading the nation's electrical transmission infrastructure would be a key component of his proposal:

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.

Gore argued that transforming the electrical system would also provide a solution for rising oil prices and limited domestic oil supplies.

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 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.

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 wecansolveit.org. 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.

Q&A About the Gore Proposal

The following Q&A about the Gore proposal was posted on the website of the Alliance for Climate Protection, the organization founded by Gore in 2006:^[3]

Why is Former Vice President Al Gore calling for 100% renewable and clean energy electricity within a decade?

We are facing three problems in the US that can be addressed together with clean energy -- economic woes, national security, and the climate crisis.
The time to do something is right now -- our planet requires we act right away, the economy will benefit from it immediately, and our national security demands it.

What does 100% renewable and clean energy electricity look like?

The Vice President is offering a challenge, not a prescription, to develop a safe, reliable, efficient and clean electricity system within a decade.
When we use the microwave or plug in a coffee maker, our electricity system will function just like it does today, but behind the scenes, it will look and function quite differently and much cleaner.
- The US will be able to reduce our demand, as much as 30% through efficiency.
- We can have a unified national grid that cost-effectively and reliably moves electricity around the country from our energy sources to our energy users at the moment it's needed.
- The electricity system can be a mix of carbon-free baseload and distpatchable sources like solar thermal with storage, geothermal, wind, solar photovoltaics, biomass, existing nuclear and hydropower, and coal and natural gas power if they are able to capture the carbon.
As soon as today, we can begin calling on our leaders to put the policies in place that will help our businesses, engineers, investors, and utilities to begin ramping up manufacturing and installation of clean energy systems to meet the challenge.

How much will it cost to transition to 100% renewable and clean energy in a decade?

This will be a one-off investment to replace an electricity grid that mainly relies on expensive and dirty old fossil fuels with one that relies more on free and clean fuels.
Over the typical 30-year lifetime of a clean power plant, we will save so much in fuel costs that it will make up for the capital investment.
With energy efficiency, we'll be able to reduce the number of new power plants we have to build and also avoid the high costs of building more dirty coal power plants planned today.
And let's compare it to other costs. What gives us any confidence that other fuels will be cheaper? Or that other capital costs won't keep rising like they have with conventional power plants recently? The prices of oil and gas have proven to be extremely volatile. Even the price of our own US coal has spiked with global demand.

How will we pay for the new energy economy?

The vast majority of funding for new power plants will come from private capital.
With Americans coming together to embrace policies for a smarter energy future, we will change what investors see as the safest or best investments. And when rules are in place to reward reducing pollution, private capital will flow towards that safe haven.
The government will likely continue to play a role in early stage R&D, infrastructure, public transportation, and jump-starting energy efficiency programs.

How will this help gasoline prices?

There are no quick fixes to the problem of rising gasoline prices. Drilling more will not impact gas prices for years, and will keep us tied to old, dirty fossil fuel technologies - when we can instead move toward an energy system that uses less oil. If we begin planning and building now for a future less reliant on oil, it could help our prices today and will reduce the amount American families spend on gasoline in the future.
What this challenge offers is -- finally -- real stability.

How will it change household electricity bills?

Energy efficiency improvements with today's technologies will save money on household and business's utility bills immediately.
The cost of fossil fuels has been rising, which means electricity bills in our old system will rise too. Instead, the challenge calls for more reliance on free fuels like the sun and wind, and since many renewables continue to achieve cost improvements, these clean technologies are price competitive.
We will need to look out for lower-income and middle-income families to ensure they have reasonable energy costs.

What are the job opportunities?

Millions of new jobs will be available in a variety of sectors, from manufacturing efficient appliances, to installing solar panels, to engineering design of energy storage systems.
To be fair, as we shift from old energy industries to new ones, we will need to address the future of workers, families, and communities that are most impacted, in part by developing plans to establish new industries and jobs in those communities.

Is this going to be a safe and reliable system?

A new electricity system will rely on a mix of different technologies with different strengths across the nation. We'll also have a smart unified national grid that can move energy around to wherever it's needed when it's needed.

Can it be done this quickly?

It's ambitious but achievable. And America has risen to these types of challenges before.
There are no technological or materials constraints that would stop this.
This, really, is a political and cultural challenge. We can do this quickly if all Americans -- every single one of us -- embrace this and insist on it. Every scientist, every teacher, every investor, every family -- there is a role for each of us.

Resources

References

↑ "Gore Delivers Remarks on Energy and Climate," Washington Post, 7/17/08
↑ "Gore Delivers Remarks on Energy and Climate," Washington Post, 7/17/08
↑ "Q&A: 100% carbon-free electricity in 10 years", We Campaign website, accessed August 8, 2008

External links

Gar Lipow, "Gore's plan is more than 100% feasible," Gristmill, 7/21/08
Sara Barz, "Mr. Gore, how do you feel about 90%," Gristmill, 7/17/08

[1] "Gore Delivers Remarks on Energy and Climate," Washington Post, 7/17/08

[2] "Gore Delivers Remarks on Energy and Climate," Washington Post, 7/17/08

[3] "Q&A: 100% carbon-free electricity in 10 years", We Campaign website, accessed August 8, 2008

[1]

[2]

[3]

Gore zero-carbon proposal

Contents

Transcript of Gore 7/17/08 Speech

Q&A About the Gore Proposal

Resources

References

Related SourceWatch Articles

External links

Navigation menu

Personal tools

Namespaces

Variants

Views

More

Search

Navigation

How To

Other Info

Other Policies

Tools