Al Gore's Plan for the "Climate Crisis"

Gleanings from Gore's testimony before Congress.

Gore: "We face a planetary emergency. I know it sounds shrill."

He proposed a Marshall Plan to address climate change. "We do not have time to play around with this," Gore declared.

Specific suggestions.

(1) We should immediately freeze CO2 emission in US. Begin sharp reductions to by 90% by 2050. [In other words, emit only 10% of CO2 that we emit today--sorry for any confusion.]  Freeze it right now.

(2) I believe we should start using the tax code to reduce taxes on production and employment and substitute pollution taxes. We’re discouraging work and encouraging the destruction of the planet’s habitability. We should discourage pollution while encouraging work. Carbon pollution is not currently priced into the marketplace. I internalize air and water and I think that the economic system should too.

(3) A portion of those revenues must be earmarked for lower income groups to make this transition

(4) I’m in favor of a strong global treaty to limit greenhouse gas emissions—I’m in favor of Kyoto—I fully understand as a brand it’s been demonized. I think we should work toward de facto compliance with Kyoto. My formal proposal is to move forward the adoption of the next treaty to 2010, not when Kyoto expires in 2012. We have to work to get China and India in participate in some way, to make them part of this effort.

(5) This Congress should enact a moratorium on all new coal fired power plants not compatible with carbon capture and sequestration.

(6) This congress should develop a Electronet—a smart grid. We ought to have a law, allow people to put up photovoltaic and wind generation and sell electricity into grid without any artificial caps.

(7) Must raise CAFÉ standards for automobile and trucks. CAFÉ must be part of a comprehensive package. Don’t single out cars and trucks. The problem is cars, coal and buildings, so must address all three

(8) Set a date for banning incandescent light bulbs.

(9) Carbon neutral mortgage association (Connie Mae) The idea is that the market doesn’t properly price energy saving technologies, e.g., insulation, double paned windows, and so forth, so government should create some kind of financial instrument to pay for these energy saving techs. He claims that they will pay for themselves.

(10) The Securities and Exchange Commission ought to require disclosure of carbon emissions in corporate reports. Because it’s a material risk that companies face.

Just letting you know.

Comments

Dave W. | March 21, 2007, 11:21am | #

If anyone has a link to Mr. Bailey's competing plan, please let me know. Too busy to GOOGLE around for it today.

montaigne | March 21, 2007, 11:22am | #

Why the light bulb? Of all the things that will piss people off, the light bulb has to be the one. As it is people get a little wierd under the flourescents, I can only imagine what it will be like if the flourescents are in the home as well (beyond the laundry room).

ed | March 21, 2007, 11:23am | #

Whew, mankind is so friggin' stupid.
Thank God for Al Gore!

joe | March 21, 2007, 11:24am | #

Point 9, about buildings and mortgages, is spot on.

If the bank figures you can afford a $1400 monthly mortgage payment, they don't care if your heating bill averages $200/month. However, if a home's design raises your mortgage to $1500 and lowers your heating bill to $50/month, they won't give you the mortgage.

FinFangFoom | March 21, 2007, 11:25am | #

Do LED lights give people headaches?

Will Allen | March 21, 2007, 11:28am | #

Hey, if global warming alarmists are willing to end all FICA taxes, in return for a carbon tax which raises the same amount of revenue, I'd be willing to sign on. At least it might end the fiction that the bonds in the Social Security trust fund are the equivalent of the government bonds sold at auction.

Kap | March 21, 2007, 11:29am | #

Do LED lights give people headaches?

No, but the pounding techno does.

dhex | March 21, 2007, 11:29am | #

only if you're a pussy, kap.

THIS IS THE HARDCORE GENERATION (repeat)

anyway...yeah, what's the deal with lightbulbs?

AC | March 21, 2007, 11:31am | #

anyway...yeah, what's the deal with lightbulbs?

You forgot to add [/seinfeld].

James Anderson Merritt | March 21, 2007, 11:31am | #

"I'm sorry if a few little boys had to die, but in the end, I killed ManBearPig."

-Al Gore, parodied on South Park (and paraphrased by me)

Parodied? Really? REALly?

Guy Montag | March 21, 2007, 11:34am | #

(1) We should immediately freeze CO2 emission in US. Begin sharp reductions to 90% by 2050. Freeze it right now.

Too bad Batman captured Mr. Freeze. It would be easier to make all that dry ice if he were our ally rather than our prisoner.

barnaby | March 21, 2007, 11:37am | #

We have to work to get China and India in participate in some way

Yeah, we also have to work to get Iran and N. Korea to stop building nukes, in some way.

Yes, even a moron has the right to speak his mind in this country.

Elect Gore! We need to be ruled by someone who grew up reading -- then aspired to write for -- the National Enquirer. He was so good at it he went and created his own syndicate.

Warren | March 21, 2007, 11:37am | #

YEESH! Bend over everybody, and spread em wide. Here comes the the flip side to the religious right.

Guy Montag | March 21, 2007, 11:37am | #

(4) I’m in favor of a strong global treaty to limit greenhouse gas emissions—I’m in favor of Kyoto—I fully understand as a brand it’s been demonized. I think we should work toward de facto compliance with Kyoto. My formal proposal is to move forward the adoption of the next treaty to 2010, not when Kyoto expires in 2012. We have to work to get China and India in participate in some way, to make them part of this effort.

Translation: it was a bad idea when I was Vice President, but don't go back and look at that record, it is a good idea now that someone else is VP.

Yes, we really need to talk to these countries that are not following it, but until then let's stop using oil and coal so it will be even cheaper for them. That should get them to come around.

lannychiu | March 21, 2007, 11:37am | #

1) I have no idea how he would actually implement this. What if I get a new job in which I have to increase my commute by 20%, does that mean the government will force me to stop using my air conditioner? Or will they force somebody else to reduce emissions, maybe by taking away airconditioning at my new office.

6) This is a great idea, but as I understand it people are already trying to develop this. And congress has few engineers to help in the design process.

10) As an investor, I can only imagine how difficult this is going to be. If I am microsoft, do I have to account for the cars that ship my product, the airplane flights my employees take? Who decides how much carbon gets allocated between the airline and Microsoft?

Kap | March 21, 2007, 11:38am | #

Somebody should assemble an array of compact fluorescent light bulbs that uses the power equivalent of Gore's consumption, and place it on the National Mall while he is testifying.

By my calculations, that would be about 2,000 of them.

Perhaps you could make a giant GORE sign, like the MOBY backdrop in that video with Gwen Stefani.

That would excuse the pounding techno music.

Maybe you could have a ManBearPig dancing in front of it.

mediageek | March 21, 2007, 11:38am | #

"Do LED lights give people headaches?"

Where are they at with these? I carry an LED flashlight (Inova X05) and keychain light with me pretty much everywhere.

But I haven't seen much on lighting houses with them, other than some experimental setups.

Also, how do they compare, efficiency-wise, to the fluorescents? (I've replaced about half the bulbs in my new house with the fluorescent bulbs.)

Ron Bailey | March 21, 2007, 11:39am | #

Dan W.: Actually Gore's #2 (pricing carbon) would take care of most of the rest of his suggestions. Higher energy prices would yield more efficient buildings, homes, lights, cars, fewer power plants, new energy technologies. Why the need for government micromanagement? After all, the US reduced its oil consumption by 13 percent during the 1970s "oil crisis". Of course, the economy was a bit slack in those days.

barnaby | March 21, 2007, 11:39am | #

A portion of those revenues must be earmarked for lower income groups to make this transition

How can you rule like a Medaeval tyrant if you kill off all the peasants?

Gamito | March 21, 2007, 11:40am | #

Al Gore's plan:
We should immediately freeze CO2 emission in US. Begin sharp reductions to 90% by 2050. Freeze it right now.

Ok, Al... Stop breathing. Seriously, Al Gore has no idea of what he is talking about - you cannot reduce 90% of emissions and yet expect people to live confortably.

(2) I believe we should start using the tax code to reduce taxes on production and employment and substitute pollution taxes. We’re discouraging work and encouraging the destruction of the planet’s habitability. We should discourage pollution while encouraging work. Carbon pollution is not currently priced into the marketplace. I internalize air and water and I think that the economic system should too.

Oh, right. Al, you were a Congressman - do you REALLY think Congress would simply kill the golden-egg-laying Goose to replace it with "pollution" taxes? First, how would you MEASURE pollution, by which standard? WHo would impose the standards, and how would ANYONE know if these standards will not be changed by each Congress out of expediency?

(3) A portion of those revenues must be earmarked for lower income groups to make this transition

Wealth re-distribution . . . who would've thunk it?

(4)My formal proposal is to move forward the adoption of the next treaty to 2010, not when Kyoto expires in 2012. We have to work to get China and India in participate in some way, to make them part of this effort.

"In some way", as in: The do not have a SINGLE incentive to follow us down the cliff, so maybe a few threats would do . . .

(5) This Congress should enact a moratorium on all new coal fired power plants not compatible with carbon capture and sequestration.

Good. And while you're at it, how about a moratorium on gas-fired powerplants? They emmit CO2, do not they? This would go along FINE with the NUCLEAR power MORATORIUM already in place. We will have to power our fridges with bicycle generators...

(6) This congress should develop a Electronet—a smart grid.

Since when is Congress capable of developing anything? Gore is being conceited here: Congress just passes laws. It is NOT a technology incubator.

We ought to have a law, allow people to put up photovoltaic and wind generation and sell electricity into grid without any artificial caps.

You need a LAW for that?? How about just letting them? Oh, right - it is UNeconomical, which means Gore is thinking of making it MANDATORY, at bayonet point.


(7) Must raise CAFÉ standards for automobile and trucks. CAFÉ must be part of a comprehensive package. Don’t single out cars and trucks. The problem is cars, coal and buildings, so must address all three

I did not know Buildings zipped along highways, burning gas along.


(8) Set a date for banning incandescent light bulbs.

Yep. The alternative is not that expensive YET, precisely because of competition from incandescents. Once you BAN the competition, prices will hit the roof, leaving poor people with the choice of buying black-market lights, or go candlelight at nights...


(9) Carbon neutral mortgage association (Connie Mae) The idea is that the market doesn’t properly price energy saving technologies, e.g., insulation, double paned windows, and so forth, so government should create some kind of financial instrument to pay for these energy saving techs. He claims that they will pay for themselves.

Al Gore is an economics ignoramus. The market does not "price" efficiency right? What, does he think he is omniscient?

Joe seems to like this idea. Wonder where HE gets the idea that Al Gore is "spot on".

eb | March 21, 2007, 11:40am | #

Did he mention anything about demanding the existing Kyoto participants to actually meet the terms of Kyoto? If we sign Kyoto can we also not actually follow it?

By China and India participating in some way, does he mean that they watch, laugh and increase their dominance in production?

Was he speaking under fluorescent lighting? I assume our Democratic congress has alread instituted that change or are holding hearings with the Fluorescent Lighting committee to address that issue.

Does anybody know where I can score some contraband incandescent light bulbs. I am close to the border so maybe I'll make a run.

Timothy | March 21, 2007, 11:43am | #

All things considered I see Gore's proposal like this:

2 and 6 actually sound pretty reasonable, as far as government actions go. 2 basically proposes a pigouvian tax on pollution to internalize the externalities into the market price of the good/service produced. There are problems with that, but if it comes with an in-kind reduction of corporate and personal income taxes I think it's an okay idea. 6 is actually a great idea, but local zoning laws are really the problem rather than anything federally so maybe Congress isn't the place for the solution.

5, 7, 9 aren't truly awful ideas, but they're certainly not good ideas either. 5 could work if there was an in-kind increase in nuclear plant production, or maybe it could work in conjunction with 6, but on its own all you'll do is hamstring power production. 7, well, if you're going to have emissions standards they should apply to all vehicles, but how likely is that? Further, higher efficiency just lowers gas prices and encourages more driving, so I wonder if it'll have any net emissions effect. 9 is just more government interference into an already buggered mortgage market, neutral at best, probably slightly bad.

1, 3, 8 and 10 are just plain batshit loco crazy. Costly, detrimental to the economy, or not the government's place. Totally and utterly unconscionable as courses of action.

AdamSC | March 21, 2007, 11:43am | #

Compact Fluorescent lightbulbs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_lamp

Modern CFLs typically have a life span specified between 8,000 and 15,000 hours.[1] Typical domestic incandescent bulbs are similarly specified to have a life of 1000 hours.

CFLs use about 20% of the power, and so in the simplest case when compared to incandescent bulbs, they can be responsible for about an 80% reduction in electricity costs and therefore also in the environmental impact of generating that electricity.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4667354.stm
It has been estimated that if every household in the US replaced just three of its incandescent light bulbs with energy-saving designs and used them for five hours per day, it would reduce emissions of carbon dioxide by 23 million tonnes, reduce electricity demand by the equivalent of 11 coal-fired power stations and save $1.8bn.

Kap | March 21, 2007, 11:43am | #

LEDs are even more efficient than CF, but they are expensive, and their color rendering index is abysmally bad. Like around 20 or so (sunlight & halogen = 100, CF is in the 60s).

Although the light is "white" it produces extremely muted colors. If you set up a grocery store with LEDs all the produce would look spoiled, nobody would buy it.

fish | March 21, 2007, 11:44am | #

Specific suggestions.

(1) We should immediately freeze CO2 emission in US. Begin sharp reductions to 90% by 2050. Freeze it right now.

Well good luck with that. (Maybe he could start with his Gulfstream...and sell the credits to his carbon credit trading company).

(2) I believe we should start using the tax code to reduce taxes on production and employment and substitute pollution taxes. We’re discouraging work and encouraging the destruction of the planet’s habitability. We should discourage pollution while encouraging work. Carbon pollution is not currently priced into the marketplace. I internalize air and water and I think that the economic system should too.

He does realize that production and employment are a big part of what he is campaigning against!

(3) A portion of those revenues must be earmarked for lower income groups to make this transition

Yeah, still need to keep the serfs on the TEAM!

(4) I’m in favor of a strong global treaty to limit greenhouse gas emissions—I’m in favor of Kyoto—I fully understand as a brand it’s been demonized. I think we should work toward de facto compliance with Kyoto. My formal proposal is to move forward the adoption of the next treaty to 2010, not when Kyoto expires in 2012. We have to work to get China and India in participate in some way, to make them part of this effort.

Again good luck with that...!

(5) This Congress should enact a moratorium on all new coal fired power plants not compatible with carbon capture and sequestration.

See 1 and 5!

(6) This congress should develop a Electronet—a smart grid. We ought to have a law, allow people to put up photovoltaic and wind generation and sell electricity into grid without any artificial caps.

Electronet, Electronet stop sticking net on the ends of words you fucking moronnet!

(7) Must raise CAFÉ standards for automobile and trucks. CAFÉ must be part of a comprehensive package. Don’t single out cars and trucks. The problem is cars, coal and buildings, so must address all three

This is happening already without your help.

(8) Set a date for banning incandescent light bulbs.

...but without the stick. See item 7

(9) Carbon neutral mortgage association (Connie Mae) The idea is that the market doesn’t properly price energy saving technologies, e.g., insulation, double paned windows, and so forth, so government should create some kind of financial instrument to pay for these energy saving techs. He claims that they will pay for themselves.

Yeah, because Fannie and Freddie aren't fucked up enough.

(10) The Securities and Exchange Commission ought to require disclosure of carbon emissions in corporate reports. Because it’s a material risk that companies face.

Al Gore is living proof that not attaining your main goal in life will drive you insane! Please don't listen to the fat crazy man!

Just letting you know.

Guy Montag | March 21, 2007, 11:44am | #

Where are they at with these? I carry an LED flashlight (Inova X05) and keychain light with me pretty much everywhere.

They do have them as replacements for marker lights and turn signals on cars now. Supposed to last so much longer. Odd thing, at Auto Zone they are very expensive and at a truck stop they are in the $9.00 or less range for what looks like the same brand.

I plan to use them for all future replacements on the Jeep and Charger.

For the home, believe it or not, there is yet another Art Bell connection between the AGW people and the ET people: ads for LED lightbulb replacements!

JKP | March 21, 2007, 11:45am | #

What -- no mention of nuclear?

If he thinks we're going to reduce CO2 emissions and still maintain our life-style without nuclear plants, he's more nuts than I thought.

And by lifestyle, I don't mean driving the kids in an SUV 1/4 of a mile down the road to McDonald's, I mean: generating electricity for agriculture and hospitals.

FinFangFoom | March 21, 2007, 11:45am | #

RE: LED light bulbs
http://theledlight.com/120-VAC-LEDbulbs.html

From what I'm seeing on that page, its a no-go right now. The highest powered one seems to have the equivalent power of a 35 watt incandescent bulb.

montaigne | March 21, 2007, 11:45am | #

Mediageek,

You replaced your light bulbs with flourescents? Wow. At work, I brought in regular house lights for my office and turned off the flourescents. My mood has improved immensely.

Ben | March 21, 2007, 11:46am | #

anyway...yeah, what's the deal with lightbulbs?

I guess he's pushing compact fluorescent, but the people doing this really need to start being more clear. If you want to replace the light-bulb technology that's been in use, virtually unchanged for the life-time of everyone now alive, you have to do a better job of selling the new product. The savings of switching to CF probably sound great to businesses, which already adopted fluorescent due to cost, but people at home want to know that these put out as much light and do so in a similarly wide spectrum. At least in my experience, people pushing compact fluorescent point out only the upside to switching without addressing the widely perceived down-side (really shitty, depressing light).

According to Wikipedia the light CF can produce is pretty similar, but I'm not sure this is true and in what cases.

Matt Damon voice | March 21, 2007, 11:47am | #

Demand curve!

barnaby | March 21, 2007, 11:47am | #

you cannot reduce 90% of emissions and yet expect people to live confortably.

You cannot reduce emissions by 90% and still expect people to live. There will have to be a serious drop in population to pull of Gore's plan.


Does anybody know where I can score some contraband incandescent light bulbs.

You might try China, India, or any other third world country. Life in one of them might soon be better than it is here.


The only thing that might counter-balance Mr National Enquirer Gore, is the fact that Americans are greedy SOBs and maybe, just maybe, they won't be willing to give it all up.

FinFangFoom | March 21, 2007, 11:47am | #

I don't think I could stand fluorescent lights everywhere. It would end up driving me into a killing rage.

Though I guess if it did that to everyone, we could kill the rest of the planet, and that would limit carbon production.

Solutions!

joe | March 21, 2007, 11:50am | #

yeah yeah yeah, the sky is falling, the economy will be destroyed, we'll be freezing the dark, and if Congress mandates seat belts there will be no American automobile industry by 1975.

chicken littles.

mediageek | March 21, 2007, 11:51am | #

"I believe we should start using the tax code to reduce taxes on production and employment and substitute pollution taxes."

This will just result in taxes on production, employment, AND pollution.

AdamSC | March 21, 2007, 11:51am | #

I only use CFLs. I couldn't tell the difference at all when I switched over. The light they produce is not at all what you'd expect from a regular long-bulb fluorescent.

They also need to be replaced a hell of a lot less frequently. They also are a lot less hot, you can touch them while they've been on for awhile and they're only warm. My current setup has them shining directly on my face, unfortunately, but I don't feel the heat I would from incandescents.

I would definitely recommend them.

Chris | March 21, 2007, 11:51am | #

Has Al Gore ever watched Mad Max, The Road Warrior, or Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome? While Gore and his Green allies might wax nostalgic for the Stone Age, a world without "guzz-o-line" apparently would be Hell on Earth. If I had one suggestion for Gore, it would be "just walk away"--and take the religious 'apocolyptos' with you.

Kap | March 21, 2007, 11:52am | #

I'm pretty much all-CF at home, the light quality depends heavily on what brand you get. The Sylvania ones (at Lowe's) are very good. Some of the others (lookin' at you, IKEA) are nasty.

Chris | March 21, 2007, 11:52am | #

PS: My post is NOT an endorsement of Mel Gibson.

Guy Montag | March 21, 2007, 11:52am | #

Since when is Congress capable of developing anything? Gore is being conceited here: Congress just passes laws. It is NOT a technology incubator.

Didn't they create the internet under his leadership?

dhex | March 21, 2007, 11:52am | #

thank you for the link adam.

"You forgot to add [/seinfeld]."

the best thing about michael richard's meltdown is that people are far more wary of saying "oh man seinfeld is SOOOOO funny."

sure, it'd be better if it were on the grounds of good taste, but whatevs.

thoreau | March 21, 2007, 11:54am | #

I only use compact fluorescent bulbs at home as well. Pictures on my digital camera look weird sometimes, but that's what the flash is for. (At least for us inexperienced amateurs who just want a picture now and then.) Otherwise I don't notice the difference. They rarely burn out, they don't heat up, and they keep the electric bill low. I don't see why the hate for CFLs.

*Of course I don't think they should be mandatory blah blah.

(Sorry, Eric.)

dagny | March 21, 2007, 11:54am | #

if Congress mandates seat belts there will be no American automobile industry by 1975.

Yes, God knows that the American auto industry is just posting such great profits that this is really funny...

oh wait...

slocum | March 21, 2007, 11:54am | #

Ok, Al... Stop breathing. Seriously, Al Gore has no idea of what he is talking about - you cannot reduce 90% of emissions and yet expect people to live confortably.

You couldn't and I couldn't, but Al certainly could--quite easily. All he'd have to do would be to reduce his enormous personal electrical energy consumption from its current 10 times that of the average American down to just average.

Now, for the rest of us going from the American average to 10% of that would be a lot tougher, but hey, Al is perfectly willing for everyone else to make the necessary sacrifices.

joe | March 21, 2007, 11:55am | #

Is anybody watching this on C Span?

It's not on either channel where I am.

Ron Bailey | March 21, 2007, 11:56am | #

Check out the lifetime costs incandescent/CFL/LED lights here. Click on the link on the Light Bulb Comparison Spreadsheet. Apparently, LEDs win hands down for lifetime cost. Treehugger says that there is now a 9W LED that replaces a 70W incandescent now available.

Ron Bailey | March 21, 2007, 11:56am | #

joe: Try C-Span Radio.

barnaby | March 21, 2007, 11:57am | #

and if Congress mandates seat belts there will be no American automobile industry by 1975.

There's only a very tine difference between mandating seat belts, and mandating a 90% reduction in total energy consumption.

The difference is that a nuclear power plant only costs FOURTY NINE CENTS more than a seat belt.

So you're right joe, these are just a bunch of chicken littles.

btw, are you expecting a cabinet post in Gore's monarchy?

Abdul | March 21, 2007, 11:59am | #

(11) No more tasers on detainees. Use energy efficient mechanical thumbscrews instead.

(12) Buy 2015, all guitars sold in the US should be accoustic.

(13) Declare a moratorium on the amount of third world development we're prepared to accept. New Guinea should be allowed to reach a Malaysia style of propserity, but no further. Malaysia can get to South Korea. South Korea can get to Holland. Holland can upgrade it's plumbing, and that's about it.

Gamito | March 21, 2007, 11:59am | #

I only use CFLs. I couldn't tell the difference at all when I switched over. The light they produce is not at all what you'd expect from a regular long-bulb fluorescent.


I ALSO use CFL on my home, exclusively. However, it is immoral AND unethical to BAN incandescent lights, which are still useful in many applications around the home. What Al Gore is implying is that government restrict people's choices ONCE more, as if people were stupid children that need someone to lead them. What a CONCEIT!

At least in my experience, people pushing compact fluorescent point out only the upside to switching without addressing the widely perceived down-side (really shitty, depressing light).

Depends on the light. There are some lights (a bit more expensive) that give a good, warm color, and the less expensive ones that deliver this blue-tinted, cool light, which IS depressing. However, it should be left to the consumer to make the decision - I am all for the idea of selling the idea of using CFL to save money/reduce emissions, and letting the buyer decide with his/her wallet. But BANNING the incandescent lights is nothing more that immoral oppression from a conceited politician - we would have a choice taken from us.

thoreau | March 21, 2007, 12:00pm | #

Thanks for the data, Ron.

To everyone else: I thought we were supposed to be enthusiasts for the power of technological improvements to solve environmental problems. So why all the hate for CFL bulbs?

VM | March 21, 2007, 12:00pm | #

"third world development "

"...Holland ..."


okay. that is funny.

NoStar | March 21, 2007, 12:02pm | #

My favorite of the Algore bullet points:

* We must go and tell the King the sky is falling down.

barnaby | March 21, 2007, 12:02pm | #

Ron,

Light bulb efficiency, by any rational measure, has always been extremely low.

Justifying the cost isn't the problem. Getting the CRI into a reasonable range is.

The human eye is tuned to work -- of all things -- in the presence of sunlight. The color distribution of sunlight is determined by the temperature of the sun.

It's been hard to produce light with a wavelength distribution similar to the sun, and yet not have a source with the same temperature as the sun.

It's just plain old physics, black body radiation.

FinFangFoom | March 21, 2007, 12:02pm | #

thoreau, well Canadian Football sucks, but as to the bulbs, there is just the lack of info out there as to whether or not they drive people to kill like regular long fluorescents do.

VM | March 21, 2007, 12:03pm | #

DrT: what about then, then. Old tyme Physics. Eddie Shore. All that.

[runs off]

Mike Kozlowski | March 21, 2007, 12:03pm | #

...Thank you, Environmental Commissar Gore. When he lives his life 100% within his rules, I'll take a good hard look at what he's asking. Until then, all I see is yet another attempt of The Right People to tell us how to live our lives while they do something very different.

FinFangFoom | March 21, 2007, 12:04pm | #

Has anyone seen those fiberoptics cable things that bring sunlight inside? Those are cool.

Kap | March 21, 2007, 12:04pm | #

I have no hate for CF bulbs, only hate for people who shove them down my throat.

As a committed strange-lightbulb-fetishist, they can have my 1/2-chrome G30s when the pry them from by singed, dead hands.

Zod | March 21, 2007, 12:04pm | #

Fools! The Gore creature knows nothing about solving these types of problems! The methods he proposes led to the destruction of Krypton! Also populated by fools! My solution is both elegant and simple:

1) Kill off five billion people and stop all unregulated breeding (other than Zod clones).

Don't be a fool--vote Zod!

Dave W. | March 21, 2007, 12:06pm | #

So why all the hate for CFL bulbs?

The quality of the light is crappy. The white ones are okay to work by and nice in the washroom, but not very romantic or aesthetically pleasing in a "homey" room. The yellow ones make light that makes everything look just plain crappy and depressing.

That said, I have mixed feelings about the proposed ban. Sacrifice may be required on my part. If I had to pay carbon offsets to keep my incandescents, I would

barnaby | March 21, 2007, 12:06pm | #

thoreau,

If you've got the cash to buy good flourescent bulbs, you can get ones with a decent CRI these days. I switched to these in many parts of my house a long time ago. I expect other bulb types will follow over time.

I suspect the beef is a) the fact that historically these alternate bulbs haven't produced as nice a light and b) the government mandate thing.

mitch | March 21, 2007, 12:06pm | #

thoreau and Gamito,

Kap says Sylvania; what brands do you guys recommend for compact flourescents?

barnaby | March 21, 2007, 12:09pm | #

Regular Sylvania flourescents suck the big one when it comes to CRI.

thoreau | March 21, 2007, 12:09pm | #

mitch-

Not being the most aesthetically oriented person I just buy whatever is cheapest.

mediageek | March 21, 2007, 12:10pm | #

"Mediageek,

You replaced your light bulbs with flourescents? Wow. At work, I brought in regular house lights for my office and turned off the flourescents. My mood has improved immensely."

Replaced them with the compact fluorescents, actually. Bought a couple packs of them. Didn't pay close attention, and one of the packs gives off that ugly bluish-hued light that fluorescents are so well-known for. I put those in the basement. The rest of them give off a warmer hue of light. (They actually mark this on the packaging.) Not quite as good as an incandescent, but close. The biggest downside that I've noticed is that the CF lamps don't immediately light up. There's a very short delay between throwing the light switch and getting light, around .25-.5 of a second. Also, the CF's seem to take about 10-20 seconds to reach peak output.

Joe will be happy to know that I bought a house in the city, not out in the 'burbs.

But I'm still driving my V8 TBird, so nyah.

Guy Montag | March 21, 2007, 12:11pm | #

I have big FLs in the kitchen and they have been on almost 24/7 for about 2 years. Both televisions are on 24/7 also. Incandescents everyplace else, but I turn them off when nobody is in the room. The heat pump is at 70 in the winter, 65 in the summer.

Since I don't use carbon power I am as Holy as Al Gore. The powere company may be using coal or something, but I am not! They could be using nuclear, so it is not my problem. I am just as earth friendly as the electric car drivers.

As far as my vehicles go, I hardly ever drive them. I go weeks without starting either one. But LEDs will be going into them wherever I can install them.

So, Al, send me a check. My electric bill is a lot lower than yours too and I have some carbon credits for you.

rac | March 21, 2007, 12:12pm | #

It seems people either believe that global warming exists or it doesn't, and then there are two subset camps; it is largely caused by human activites, or it is not. I am in the very limited camp that hopes global warming is a reality, AND, I hope I am playing my part in its continued growth.

Guy Montag | March 21, 2007, 12:13pm | #

mediageek,

Cool car. What motor?

ChicagoTom | March 21, 2007, 12:14pm | #

I only use CFLs. I couldn't tell the difference at all when I switched over. The light they produce is not at all what you'd expect from a regular long-bulb fluorescent.


Same here. I didn't notice much of a difference.

The real issue with Compact Fluorescent is what to do with them when they eventually do burn out. Apparently they have a lot of mercury in them and need to be disposed of by either being brought back to stores that recycle them or taking them to some government disposal facility. They aren't supposed to be thrown out in the trash.

That to me seems like the biggest drawback and a big risk -- I imagine most people are gonna just trash them.

I had read a few months ago that Wal-Mart was going to start really pushing CFLs -- to the point that they were going to set up tons of displays and move them off the bottom shelf to the eye level shelves and set up a recycling facility. Dunno how thats going though

FinFangFoom | March 21, 2007, 12:16pm | #

If they want people to recycle CFLs, and potentially forestall govt regulation, they might want to give a rebate for bringing them to the recycling center.

mediageek | March 21, 2007, 12:17pm | #

Guy, it's the 4.6 liter motor. Pretty much factory stock. I'm not much of a car guy.

Dear God. | March 21, 2007, 12:20pm | #

TO 90%, not BY 90%. Read.

Wow.

R C Dean | March 21, 2007, 12:21pm | #

The Securities and Exchange Commission ought to require disclosure of carbon emissions in corporate reports. Because it’s a material risk that companies face.

I don't get it. What is the material risk to financial performance involved in carbon emission?

Unless of course he is talking about his fantasy future where the government punishes carbon emitters.

mediageek | March 21, 2007, 12:23pm | #

One downside, though.

I installed a new light fixture to illuminate the stairs into the basement.

Yanked out the old one that takes one incandescent bulb, and replaced it with another that takes 3 of the CF's.

So I replaced one 60W incandescent with three CF's that each use probably 18W each for a total of 54W.

So in the case of that particular fixture, I'm not really saving that much energy. (Increased efficiency almost always leads to more, not less, power consumption.)

fyodor | March 21, 2007, 12:28pm | #

#2 good, other 9 bad.

Guy Montag | March 21, 2007, 12:33pm | #

Apparently they have a lot of mercury in them and need to be disposed of by either being brought back to stores that recycle them or taking them to some government disposal facility.

You could go fishing with them.

Guy Montag | March 21, 2007, 12:34pm | #

mediageek,

Probably a decent motor, but I am not a Ford guy. Still .6L bigger than my Jeep motor and .6L smaller than the hybrid Charger motor :)

Guy Montag | March 21, 2007, 12:38pm | #

So, how do you guys think the November 2008 Al vs Fred vote will go?

Ken Shultz | March 21, 2007, 12:43pm | #

"(9) Carbon neutral mortgage association (Connie Mae) The idea is that the market doesn’t properly price energy saving technologies, e.g., insulation, double paned windows, and so forth, so government should create some kind of financial instrument to pay for these energy saving techs. He claims that they will pay for themselves."

So according to Al Gore, we're a bunch of retards.

...Is there some other way to interpret that?

sage | March 21, 2007, 12:45pm | #

--"Do LED lights give people headaches?"

Where are they at with these? I carry an LED flashlight (Inova X05) and keychain light with me pretty much everywhere.

But I haven't seen much on lighting houses with them, other than some experimental setups.--

I know that for lighting marine aquariums, they are the cat's meow.

Equivalent in intensity to MH, but without nearly as much heat. And you can keep pretty much any type of coral or anenome you like. But they're pricey.

http://www.jlaquatics.com/phpstore/store_pages/tlist/ledlighting/ledlighting.php?category_ID=144

Guy Montag | March 21, 2007, 12:49pm | #

Okay, I am finished joking and picking now. Well, the car and house stuff was neither, but anyway . . .

For any of you mistaken about what former VP Gore was doign today, he was NOT proposing an new way forward for saving the planet. He was kicking off a presidential campaign.

Your Good Buddy Johnny Clarke | March 21, 2007, 12:49pm | #

If individuals reduce their power usage, but the US population continues to grow, doesn't total consumption remain about the same? Or is there some plan to reduce family size?

AlfromAlberta | March 21, 2007, 12:51pm | #

Would people please wake up and read the science.
The CO2 factor would not even be worth mention; if it were not for the fact that the greenies cannot find anything else they could (falsely) link to human success and development.
CO2 IS NOT a major greenhouse gas. It is a trace element and is responsible for about 0 .28% of the theoretical greenhouse effect. The total of all "manmade" CO2 therefore accounts for approximately 0.117% of the greenhouse effect. Also worth noting is that the total greenhouse effect, by most accounts, is responsible for less than half of any perceived climate change. We could shut down the entire economy of the U.S. and have absolutely no measurable effect on climate. Easy to read numbers and graphs here http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html.

Ken Shultz | March 21, 2007, 12:54pm | #

I remember the debate about whether Kerry would have been worse--glad that's over.

...but I think we should consider whether Gore would have been worse. I mean, what's worse? President Bush making a mess of our security policy, both foreign and domestic, or a President Gore making a mess of our economy?

I say a pox on both their houses!

barnaby | March 21, 2007, 12:59pm | #

For any of you mistaken about what former VP Gore was doign today, he was NOT proposing an new way forward for saving the planet. He was kicking off a presidential campaign.

I was hoping that was the case. Because if it is, his one-issue party plank is likely going down in flames.

Somewhere between now and November 2008, it will occur to everybody except joe, that maybe there's more to life than The Carbon Inquisition.

I think, Grand Inquisitor Gore is unlikely to walk away with the big prize.

fyodor | March 21, 2007, 1:00pm | #

So according to Al Gore, we're a bunch of retards.

...Is there some other way to interpret that?

Oh, we're not retards. We're just average and bureucrats are geniuses.

Ha-ha.

Actually, this is the kind of centralized tinkering with the marketplace (and with others' lives) that gets the likes of joe into mouth watering mode, witness his singling that point out for hearty endorsement.

Chris | March 21, 2007, 1:02pm | #

Didn’t he leave out the step where we’re supposed to sacrifice a virgin to Gaia during the vernal equinox to gain the climate gods favor and avert the Apocalypse?

barnaby | March 21, 2007, 1:02pm | #

but I think we should consider whether Gore would have been worse. I mean, what's worse? President Bush making a mess of our security policy, both foreign and domestic, or a President Gore making a mess of our economy?

I thought I was the only one who asked those kinds of questions.

I humbly submit that Iraq is cheaper in the long run than The Great Carbon Inquisition. I am absolutely unconvinced that fewer people would have died in the long run with The Carbon Inquisition. Just the opposite.

VM | March 21, 2007, 1:06pm | #

WARMING!!!!

barnaby | March 21, 2007, 1:07pm | #

But if Gore wins, does that mean we'll all have to face Tennessee at noon each day, kneel down on our mats and pay homage?

barnaby | March 21, 2007, 1:08pm | #

Father forgive me, for I cooked my dinner last night.....with the f'ing lights on!

Guy Montag | March 21, 2007, 1:09pm | #

If Gore were president we would be having a dialogue with the terrorists, just like the India and China dialogue he wants for AGW.

The inquisition on people not saving energy would be bigger than the one that happened with everybody who ever saw Timothy McVay in the months and years after his capture.

Oh, and don't forget that every FBI record on every political opponent would be in the West Wing on the desk of a staffer.

barnaby | March 21, 2007, 1:10pm | #

Guy,

Has it occurred to you, that you could get filthy rich selling indulgences??!!!

Steven | March 21, 2007, 1:13pm | #

I like everything in point number 2 that doesn't say "pollution tax."

Al Gore | March 21, 2007, 1:17pm | #

Hah! I bet you didn't expect some sort of Carbon Inquisition!

Guy Montag | March 21, 2007, 1:20pm | #

Has it occurred to you, that you could get filthy rich selling indulgences??!!!

Yes, but I keep trying to sell the Montag Carbon Credit Cards in the wrong places. I need to find where those guys from The Nation hang out. The Reasonids just ain't buyin'.

Ken Shultz | March 21, 2007, 1:23pm | #

"I mean, what's worse? President Bush making a mess of our security policy, both foreign and domestic, or a President Gore making a mess of our economy?"

...and notice that although their messages are different, in a very basic way, they're the same.

It's all about fear mongering.

Steve | March 21, 2007, 1:25pm | #

My new #2

2)I believe we should start using the tax code to reduce taxes on production and employment...We’re discouraging work...We should...encourage work. Carbon pollution is not currently priced into the marketplace.

Now it's fixed

barnaby | March 21, 2007, 1:25pm | #

The Reasonids just ain't buyin'.

Have you talked to Al Gore about this? He could bank roll your start up.

Guy Montag | March 21, 2007, 1:28pm | #

Have you talked to Al Gore about this? He could bank roll your start up.

Not yet, but the next time he is over for pizza and ribs I will ask him :)

Pro Libertate | March 21, 2007, 1:37pm | #

Pizza and ribs. I see. Well, that explains Gore's weight gain.

Now that I think about it, Gore should go on a Gandhiesque hunger strike to motivate us to curb our proliferate ways.

Eric the .5b | March 21, 2007, 1:40pm | #

To everyone else: I thought we were supposed to be enthusiasts for the power of technological improvements to solve environmental problems. So why all the hate for CFL bulbs

Man, what? Gore rambles on about command-economy stuff (arbitrary price-setting for "externalities" and magically making unfeasibly expensive technology cheap) and you just try to mock the libertarian in your head disliking CFL?

Neu Mejican | March 21, 2007, 1:41pm | #

ALberta,

You might want to broaden your reading to include more perspectives on the issue.

I find this place a nice place to start.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/busy-week-for-water-vapor/

Neu Mejican | March 21, 2007, 1:44pm | #

"The Reasonids just ain't buyin'.":

Why buy the bullshit when you can just buy a bull?

The joke, Guy, has gotten, ummmmm, old. Really. We all get it. No need to repeat it. You are a clever wit. Now move on.

brotherben | March 21, 2007, 1:46pm | #

The good meats with all the transfats give more calories per ounce. You could cook less and fill the same caloric need. By cooking less you are more green. therefore---transfats are good.

Does cooking oil with transfats provide more energy(cetane) for alternate fuels vehicles?

joe | March 21, 2007, 1:51pm | #

So let me get this straight: a whole bunch of you read Gore's first point as calling for an immediate 90% reduction in carbon emissions, and you didn't bat an eye.

You were told (as you understood it) that the former Vice President of the United States was calling for an immediate - immediate - reduction in greenhouse gas output by an entire order of magnitude, and that didn't send off any alarm bells?

I'm going to throw this out - do you think that maybe your perception of environmentalists in general, and Al Gore in particular, is maybe a little bit warped?

Matt L | March 21, 2007, 2:00pm | #

Pizza and ribs. I see. Well, that explains Gore's weight gain.

He's just doing his part by sequestering carbon in his own body fat.

carrick | March 21, 2007, 2:01pm | #

From the AP: Al Gore, a Democratic favorite for the presidency despite pronouncements that he's not running, spoke out on his signature issue Wednesday, warning of a "true planetary emergency"

As someone who thinks the human population is contributing to (but not solely responsible for) global warming, I cringe every time Al "chicken little" Gore opens his mouth.

Will Allen | March 21, 2007, 2:12pm | #

Matt, do not neglect to consider methane's contribution to global warming. Looking at Al and Tipper, I get the suspicion that Saturday night at the Gore manse may be a version of the campfire scene in "Blazing Saddles."

Guy Montag | March 21, 2007, 2:12pm | #

As someone who thinks the human population is contributing to (but not solely responsible for) global warming, I cringe every time Al "chicken little" Gore opens his mouth.

It makes me support the draft Al campaign!

MikeP | March 21, 2007, 2:15pm | #

So let me get this straight: a whole bunch of you read Gore's first point as calling for an immediate 90% reduction in carbon emissions, and you didn't bat an eye.

?

I've read every comment on the thread. I searched for every instance of '90%'. Where did you get the impression that anyone thought the 90% reduction was immediate?

mediageek | March 21, 2007, 2:15pm | #

Joe, I originally misread the statement as "reducing it to 90% of current emissions." In other words a 10% cut, which, under the circumstances isn't terribly unreasonable.

A 90% cut, on the other hand, is, without some serious technological changes, nutsoid.

carrick | March 21, 2007, 2:24pm | #

It makes me support the draft Al campaign!

Well Guy, I don't fully understand your comment.

Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, humanity has pumped hundreds of millions of tons of chemicals into the atmosphere. Since we have a closed system, it is impossible that there would be no effect.

It is of course way far from settled whether that effect is larger than normal variations in earth's atmospheric condition; whether that effect is permanent or temporary; whether the total effect of human development will push the atmophere out of equilibrium.

It is also far from settled what the overall consequences of global warming will be.

Anyone that asserts that we are on the brink of utter disaster is totally irresponsible.

Matt L | March 21, 2007, 2:27pm | #

I originally read it as a cut to 90% of current emissions too, which isn't terribly unreasonable. A cut of 90% really is nuts unless there are some huge technological advances, or serious regressions, to say pre-Industrial Revolution living.

Guy Montag | March 21, 2007, 2:33pm | #

Well Guy, I don't fully understand your comment.

From your first paragraph, I did not think that I would be bright enough to explain it to you. But the rest sounded pretty good, so here goes.

Albert Gore, Jr. sounds like a raving lunatic to those who are not his fellow Plutonians. Having him as the candidate for his party, which I like better than some but less than two others, helps the ones I like win.

carrick | March 21, 2007, 2:33pm | #

Gore advised lawmakers to cut carbon dioxide and other warming gases 90 percent by 2050 to avert a crisis.

So joe, the crazy libertarians here actually did understand what Gore said -- cut existing emissison by 90% in just over 40 years.

This statement clearly indicates that Gore is both crazy and dangerous.

MikeP | March 21, 2007, 2:34pm | #

I'm going to throw this out - do you think that maybe your perception of environmentalists in general, and Al Gore in particular, is maybe a little bit warped?

If I were called up before Congress and said, "I propose we allow the warming of the earth by 5-8°F by 2100, and it won't cost us a thing: In fact, the global GDP per person will be 60% higher than if we restructure society to worry about such warming," I would be called a nutter and accused of suggesting something with possible catastrophic consequences.

But Al Gore gets up before Congress and says, "I propose we decrease the nation's carbon emissions by 90% by 2050," and no one bats an eye.

At least I have in my hand an IPCC report that says the results of such global warming are not likely to be catastrophic. All Gore has are dreams of conservation and undiscovered magical technologies.

Which of our suggestions is more likely to cause a catastrophe? Which of us has more theoretical and empirical support for his position?

carrick | March 21, 2007, 2:35pm | #

Albert Gore, Jr. sounds like a raving lunatic to those who are not his fellow Plutonians. Having him as the candidate for his party, which I like better than some but less than two others, helps the ones I like win.

That's what I guessed you were trying to say, but I wasn't really sure given the brevity of your previous post.

Zod | March 21, 2007, 2:38pm | #

I, Zod, neglected to inform you, the citizens of Planet Houston, that I shall also ban all Kryptonite lights. So, in his puny way, the Gore creature anticipated this new ruling. Therefore, he shall die only one painful death.

Zod is merciful.

Guy Montag | March 21, 2007, 2:44pm | #

Gore forgot to mention killer bees too. He is in the pocket of big malaria.

joe | March 21, 2007, 2:47pm | #

Mike P,

I refer you to Gamito at 11:40 and barnary at 11:57.

mediageek, Matt L,

Of COURSE a 90% reduction in emissions without serious technological reductions, phased in over a long period, is nutsoid. No reasonable person would call for any such thing, and yet people have such deluded ideas about this issue that they didn't for a second find it odd to be told that Al Gore was doing so.

joe | March 21, 2007, 2:48pm | #

That's it, people. You've have your answer.

To Guy Montag, Gore's proposals sound unreasonable.

Make of that what you will.

carrick | March 21, 2007, 2:51pm | #

No joe, we have Gore's actual words and he is unreasonable.

Either tell us you agree with Al that the US can cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 90% in 40 years or shut the fuck up.

JasonL | March 21, 2007, 2:54pm | #

I didn't read all the upthread comments but:

CFL's aren't so great becuase they have more than a little mercury in them. NPR had to do an interesting retraction on an enviro suggestion piece based on this feature.

My read: It is a mixed bag, a compromise on some of it should be possible. He was shrill.

MikeP | March 21, 2007, 2:55pm | #

I refer you to Gamito at 11:40 and barnary at 11:57.

Neither of those says anything that implies that the author thinks the 90% is immediate. Both comments make perfect sense given the understanding that the 90% is to be phased in over forty years.

If I say that a 90% reduction by 2050 is, by all current evidence, impossible without fantastically reduced economic output, and that Gore is effectively crazy to say that it's required, am I too going to be accused of misreading the 90% reduction as immediate?

Dee | March 21, 2007, 3:00pm | #

What about number 11 it seemed to be omitted.

11. Never allow overweight blowhard jackass former or current politicians to fly on private jets that produce more CO2 on one leg than I will in a lifetime. Or Hollywood movie stars.

Remember folks this is the same piece of shit Al Gore that wrote a book on Deforestation and had it printed on NEW paper! How many times does someone have to point out a Hypocrits faults and backward ass mentality before people ignore them? Al must be working on a new world record for bull shitting the country.

I liked it better when if was just his wife trying to take my music away. Ah good times.

joe | March 21, 2007, 3:07pm | #

carrick,

"No one knows and no one can wholely accurately predict what sort of rise in temperature we will see over the next fifty to hundred years. Indeed, that seems to be the primary argument amongst climate scientists these days."

1. I agree that the US can cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 90% in 40 years.

2. You are ill-mannered cad who can't help but lapse into profanity when you are being beaten in an argument. Also, your Mom gives good head when she takes her dentures out.

joe | March 21, 2007, 3:08pm | #

Oops, carrick the cad's quote was "Either tell us you agree with Al that the US can cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 90% in 40 years or shut the fuck up."

carrick | March 21, 2007, 3:15pm | #

I agree that the US can cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 90% in 40 years.

Then you are as crazy and dangerous as Al is.

D-FENS | March 21, 2007, 3:16pm | #

I was going to comment about the possibility of having to put CF headlights in my car, but I guess the car will be banned first. I had a CF bulb burn out once, and the base became extremely hot, and oozed some kind of black goo. That was a pretty early version, though, so maybe that type of failure is no longer an issue.

Aside from greenhouse gasses, has anyone ever studied the amount of heat we actually put out? Any energy conversion gives off waste heat due to inefficiency, from good ol' lightbulbs to tiny amounts of heat generated by friction of air moving over wind turbine blades. I imagine it's pretty miniscule compared to solar input, but I'm curious. Hell, I'm not even sure I know how to estimate it.

carrick | March 21, 2007, 3:18pm | #

Also, your Mom gives good head when she takes her dentures out.

My mother has all of her teeth, so you must have mistaken your sister for her last night.

Neu Mejican | March 21, 2007, 3:20pm | #

Al Gore is just in the pocket of big-carbon-trading...

http://www.noco2.com.au/

Seriously. This is a for profit company working on carbon reductions. Check it out you whiners.
Stop complaining and start making money.

Matt L | March 21, 2007, 3:23pm | #

I liked it better when if was just his wife trying to take my music away. Ah good times.

It was a simpler time. CF light bulbs were a wild and crazy future technology. Al's "internet" invention was little more than a crude system connecting some universities. Life was good.

Guy Montag | March 21, 2007, 4:00pm | #

The best reaction to "Connie Mae" is by corbettw over on /.:

Did I read that right? Did the Goreacle really call for something called "Connie Mae" to handle "carbon offsets"? How the hell did he come up with that name?

Goreacle: Now, we have to have a name to sell this con.
Goreacle's aide: What if we called it something like Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae?
Goreacle: That's perfect! We'll call it "Connie Mae"! We'll tell people it's like mortgages, but for carbon. Then when people point out it's just a shell game, we'll be all like "Ooh, you don't like homeowners!" It can't fail! Quick, to the Goreplane! We have to tell Congress about this great invention.

Cue "Batman" theme music.

Will Allen | March 21, 2007, 4:12pm | #

I see joe and carrick have contributed mightily to this thread.

VM | March 21, 2007, 4:13pm | #

Will - just wait for rob to show up!

brotherben | March 21, 2007, 4:14pm | #

could be worse

he could be mormon

carrick | March 21, 2007, 4:16pm | #

thanks, will

wally the bird | March 21, 2007, 4:20pm | #

All AL GORE needs now is a temple so all the eco-wackos can go and worship him and his rediclous new age religion which is just the reworking of pagan new age religions AL GORE WORSHIPS AT THE TEMPLE OF GAIA

Mike Laursen | March 21, 2007, 4:26pm | #

Ronald, I think you must have accidentally left out the part of his testimony where he recommended building more nuclear power plants. He did recommend building more nuclear power plants, didn't he?

Mike Laursen | March 21, 2007, 4:41pm | #

I don't think I could stand fluorescent lights everywhere. It would end up driving me into a killing rage.

Besides compact flurorescents, there is also a new generation of fluorescent tubes with electronic ballasts (T5 and T8). They don't flicker or hum like the old T12s, and are more energy efficient.

Mike Laursen | March 21, 2007, 4:44pm | #

You need a LAW for that?? How about just letting them?

In states where the utilities are publicly or semi-publicly owned, you do need to pass a law to enable selling power back to the grid. Not saying that it's a good thing, but it's the political reality.

Gamito | March 21, 2007, 4:54pm | #

To everyone else: I thought we were supposed to be enthusiasts for the power of technological improvements to solve environmental problems. So why all the hate for CFL bulbs?

Wait a second, Thoreau - indicating the IMMORALITY of a ban on incandescent lights is NOT the same as hating CFL bulbs.

Gamito | March 21, 2007, 5:00pm | #

(1) We should immediately freeze CO2 emission in US. Begin sharp reductions [...] by 90% by 2050. [In other words, emit only 10% of CO2 that we emit today--sorry for any confusion.] Freeze it right now.

Huh, what was the confusion? In clearly says that the escapee from bedlam [a.k.a. Al Gore] wants the US to reduce its carbon emission to a level which is only 10% of right now, or a 90% reduction. That's absurd.

Gamito | March 21, 2007, 5:02pm | #

what brands do you guys recommend for compact flourescents?

GE makes good lights. I bought some made by IKEA, at one of their stores (I live in Houston), and they work all right - good color, and not very expensive.

Isaac Bartram | March 21, 2007, 5:12pm | #

Seriously, joe, WTF???

If you want to argue, argue.

But, please stop making "your mother" posts. they are cheap and disgusting.

You really, really need to stop taking attacks on your political idols as personal insults. They're not. Some of us think your heroes are despicable people, get fucking used to it. We take insults from your kind all the time.

R C Dean | March 21, 2007, 5:32pm | #

The idea is that the market doesn’t properly price energy saving technologies, e.g., insulation, double paned windows, and so forth

Why not? Is he saying that energy is underpriced now? If so, underpriced compared to what? Is he claiming a market failure that depresses energy costs?

so government should create some kind of financial instrument to pay for these energy saving techs. He claims that they will pay for themselves.

And how will that happen? Where will the money come from to pay off these financial instruments?

R C Dean | March 21, 2007, 5:33pm | #

Must raise CAFÉ standards for automobile and trucks.

The price in blood of higher CAFE standards is well known. So right there, he has to weigh whatever eco-benefits this will create against lost lives and limbs.

joe | March 21, 2007, 5:56pm | #

Isaac,

"You really, really need to stop taking attacks on your political idols as personal insults." Telling me to "shut the fuck up" is not an attack on my "political idols." It is a personal insult, and a vulgar one at that.

I don't take kindly to people who swear at and insult me, and tend to respond in kind, with an appropriate level of interest. No, I will not unilaterally turn the other cheek when people hurl abuse at me. Deal with it.

Pro Libertate | March 21, 2007, 6:05pm | #

As a long-term poster, I can say that joe's only insulted me a couple of times (and mild insults, at that), even though we agree only about 27.215% of the time. I've seen him fly off the handle, I'll admit, but he's not that bad for someone who thinks we're all batshit insane :) I think he tends to lose his temper the worst when we gang up on him. Which happens occasionally, since we're all right and everything.

u.r. doomed | March 21, 2007, 6:52pm | #

In the 1960's overpopulation and mass starvation decimated the earth. In the 70's global cooling ushered in a new ice age burying the northern hemisphere under glaciers. In the 80's acid rain killed our rivers, lakes and forests, no tree or fish was spared. In that same decade hiv/aids jumped to the heterosexual population, killing most. Since the 90's global warming roasted the few hardy souls remaining, leaving not a soul to be ravaged by bird flu. If only the government had done something before it was too late.

joe | March 21, 2007, 6:57pm | #

"My mother has all of her teeth, so you must have mistaken your sister for her last night."

Good one.

But seriously, she must not have told you about the bed rail incident. I'm not surprised; not a pround moment.

;-)

joe | March 21, 2007, 7:00pm | #

"In the 1960's overpopulation and mass starvation decimated the earth." A theory never backed up by evidence, and never accepted by a majority of the people in the field.

"In the 70's global cooling ushered in a new ice age burying the northern hemisphere under glaciers." A theory never backed up by evidence, and never accepted by any more than a fraction of the people in the field.

"In the 80's acid rain killed our rivers, lakes and forests, no tree or fish was spared." A documented problem, successfully addressed at very little cost through public policy. Let's hope our efforts are so successful with global warming.

"In that same decade hiv/aids jumped to the heterosexual population, killing most." A documented problem, the worst effects successfully addressed through a combination of public policy and private efforts.

Bob Smith | March 21, 2007, 10:37pm | #

Just one thing: the entire North American continent is a net carbon sink. In other words, we absorb much more carbon than we produce. Gore is a scientific fraud, a schill for what he really wants: Big Socialism.

The US is a Carbon Sink:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/282/5388/442

carrick | March 21, 2007, 11:07pm | #

One last comment for joe.

I think you are generally a weasel and not worth talking to. I try to avoid responding to you because you just frustrate me to the point of issuing profanities. If you don't like that you can go fuck yourself. If you don't like that comment, you can tell me to do the same. However your penchant for invoking mothers and sexual activities is a descent to the worst aspects of junior high.

lemming | March 22, 2007, 12:28am | #

Damn, I hate flourescent light bulbs. Gives me headaches. And wasn't there a time when people were discussing other health issues related to flourescents? What about the health costs there?

barnaby | March 22, 2007, 3:33am | #

Well I had to go to work today and fell off the thread. Then I got back and somebody told me about this.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucac/20070321/cm_ucac/thecomingassage;_ylt=AkfAGZseHaSy0l3ILDO.5EX9wxIF

I swear my posts were up before this article hit the net. I mean I made it up about the Inquisition, seemed funny and that's all.

So I'm not the only one who's called it an Inquisition.

We all grew up with GI Joe dolls. Our grand kids will grow up with GIG dolls. Grand Inquisitor Gore -- hero or villan? The next election will tell.

Get the GIG Action Pig (bio-degradable of course) at stores near you.

Guy Montag | March 22, 2007, 6:52am | #

We all grew up with GI Joe dolls.

Action figures!

Oh, and I only had the solid plastic Army figures and Major Matt Mason.

Guy Montag | March 22, 2007, 7:01am | #

And wasn't there a time when people were discussing other health issues related to flourescents? What about the health costs there?

We all must make sacrafices to save the planet. Or buy some carbon credits.

Guy Montag | March 22, 2007, 7:04am | #

In the 80's acid rain killed our rivers, lakes and forests, no tree or fish was spared.

LOL, anybody who "backs that up" is a freaking lying lunatic and you beat me to the punch on that whole list :)

MJ | March 22, 2007, 8:11am | #

"(1) We should immediately freeze CO2 emission in US. ...Freeze it right now."

Immediately? How? That's the question left unanswered. How would Gore propose the US do that? Presumably, this would be by some kind of government mandate. From where would the government derive the authority to do that? Perhaps, more importantly, where would the goverment get the practical ability to effectively monitor and enforce such a mandate?

I cannot help but get the impression that this constitutes magical thinking on Gore's part, Congress makes a law and it shall be so. Or he's simply dishonest and realizes that any such action would be purely symbolic.

barnaby | March 22, 2007, 9:34am | #

Or, he's simply honest and really does intend to rule over peasants living in dirt huts.

rob | March 22, 2007, 10:13am | #

"Will - just wait for rob to show up!" - VM

Ouch! Thanks for the invite, but no thanks...

VM | March 22, 2007, 10:27am | #

/kicks pebble (no "ouch" intended, tho. sorry)

R C Dean | March 23, 2007, 7:37am | #

Interesting. In the thread above, I ask specific and rather basic questions about 2 or 3 of Gore's proposals. There seem to be no answers to these questions.

Even from the "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do it" crowd.

rob | March 23, 2007, 10:32am | #

RC - You didn't actually expect those answers, I'm sure.

VM - No worries, man. (In other non-news, I'm trying to limit my rhetorical beat-downs of joe to one a week. It's just a bad habit, like smoking cigars...)

Not Bill Clinton | March 23, 2007, 1:13pm | #

hand-dipped cigars?

Guy Montag | March 25, 2007, 7:18am | #

RCD,

It seems the objective of the Gorites is to starve brown people, but share the suffering with some rich people (who can never be brown, of course). Some rich people "suffering", like that of the Gore klan is in paying off enviro-sins with cash. For the rest it is freezing in the dark as the jack-bootied envirocops check every home for counter-revolutionary carbon.

E85 starves brown people and produces more greenhouse gasses than C8H18, but it is done with love and compassion.

Is there a new ribbon or wristband color for envirofreaks?