Gore: "It’s going to take a 90-percent decrease in carbon emissions"

source: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/19/2625/



let's face the reality here folks, what is currently being sold by both parties in Congress is pathetically inadequate. we better start demanding real action on climate change. and we better stop supporting the tin soldiers who say the pretty words but fail to offer the harsh remedies we require. that might not be very good marketing advice for a campaign consultant; it's damned good advice if you want our society to survive.

as Gore said in the linked article: "These are not political problems. They are moral imperatives."

BTW, here's a little more fuel on the fire (pun intended): Census Bureau "middle series" projections suggest the US will add another 120 million people to its population by midcentury - for a total of approximately 400 million; and then will add another 170 million, to roughly double the current population to 570 million by century's end.

How does he propose we cut emissions by 90%? How many people are willing to walk to work, turn off air conditioners and televisions, say goodbye to their computers, etc.? How many people actually want to turn back the calendar by a couple of centuries?

i'm afraid I have to agree with you ...

we will "turn back the clock" whether we CHOOSE to or not ... until we develop real alternatives, and we will not do that soon enough to save ourselves, we will be forced to make the changes visionary leadership could call for now ...

i'd like us to be proactive; I agree with your point that we are unlikely to be ...

to solar/wind power to sustain itself? If the government would purchase these things in bulk and sell them at an amazing deal to people it would be a start.

What about cleaner cars and trucks? We put up a lot of carbon with our driving that can be limited with a better fleet of vehicles.

Greener new buildings also will be very helpful.

Yes, we would have to make some sacrifices but we aren't getting anywhere by sitting around and doing nothing but twiddling our thumbs.

I just can't see how it's feasible. Personally, I can't use only 10% of the gas I use now. I get 35+ mpg in my car, but I drive 20 miles per day round trip for work. Biking to where I work isn't an option, especially since I work shifts. Going out there at night would get me run over.

Using only 10% of the electricity we currently use isn't feasible either. I have no desire to sit around sweltering this time of year or freezing in the winter. Right now our central AC is running full blast, and earlier today I was using a window unit in this room. I like to be cool, and that's not something that I'm willing to change.

As for consumer goods, we're not especially materialistic around our house anyway. Garbage? Trying reducing it by 90% when you have two kids in the house. Water? Am I supposed to stop drinking, bathing, and watering my tomatoes?

That site, however well-intentioned, to me, is fantasy.

You can use all the electricity you want if it comes from wind, pv, tidal, etc (even nuclear if necessary).
You can drive as far as you want using carbon-neutral algal biofuel and/or electric cars.
Waxman has a bill already - Gore likes it - from the Grist live-blogging:

<snip>

Waxman from Calif.: if gov't did nothing, there's no reason any business would want to reduce emissions. So "market forces" without gov't intervention? Stupid. Yay, a shout-out for "efficiency"! References his Clean Climate Act. We call for 1990 levels by 2020; 80% below that by 2050. Do you think those kinds of reductions are those the scientists are calling for, whether or not they're politically palatable?

Gore: yes. I like your legislation. Your reduction levels are in keeping with what scientists recommend. I think current CO2 levels are already dangerously high. A few years from now, the world will look so different. The range of things we're talking about now are going to look small and silly. The trajectory of awareness and demands is headed straight up, and it's bipartisan.

Waxman: should we not also work to address conventional pollutants?

Gore: yes. The so-called "four pollutant" approach is the right one. Utilities should address all at once.

Waxman: I hear people worry about destroying the economy. That sounds like fear. I also hear an almost theological support for nuclear. I agree with your view -- let's unleash the ingenuity of the marketplace. But we have to insist on those reductions.

<snip>
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/3/21/64353/7250

As for the 2050 thing, the website seems to be telling you to do it for one year starting now. Maybe I didn't read it close enough, though. Also, I was under the impression that Gore thought we should have made the 90% reduction in ten years, but again, maybe I misunderstood.

Yes, that website says reduce by 90% now,
but Gore is talking about gradually shifting to 90% reduction over 40 years.

as transcribed by Grist live blogger:

No. 1: immediate carbon freeze! Then a program of reductions -- 90% reductions by 2050! Wow, that's ballsy.

Second: reduce taxes on employment and production, and make up the difference with pollution taxes, mainly CO2. I understand this is considered politically impossible, but part of our challenge is to expand what's possible. This is a longer-term shift, but we should start. It would make us more competitive. Discourage pollution while encouraging work. But carbon pollution is not priced into the marketplace. They're externalities. But I internalize air and water, as do you.

Third: a portion of the revenues must be earmarked for low-income people who will have a difficult time making this transition.

Fourth: strong global treaty. I like Kyoto, but I understand that Kyoto, as a brand, has been demonized. I worked on nuclear arms control. SALTII was demonized. But then Reagan realized we needed it, came up with a new name for it, and it passed.

We should work toward "de facto compliance with Kyoto." We ought to move forward the start date of the next treaty, from 2012 to 2010, so the next president can use his or her political good will to act immediately. We have to build more confidence that China and India will join sooner rather than later.

Fifth: a moratorium on construction of any new coal-fired power plant not compatible with carbon capture and sequestration. Wowzer.

Sixth: develop an "electranet" -- a smart grid. Just as widely distributed info processing led to a big new surge of productivity ... we need a law that allows widely distributed energy generation to be sold into the grid, at a rate determined not by a monopsony, but by regulation. Then, you may never need another central power generation plant. This is where Dave has a wonkgasm.

Seventh: raise CAFE standard. Yes, Dingell, I heard you, it should be part of a comprehensive package. It's only a slice of the problem, but it is a big slice. The problem is "cars, coal, and buildings."

Eighth: set a date for the ban of incandescent light bulbs. Give industry time to prepare, but set a date. They'll adjust.

Ninth: create Connie Mae, a carbon-neutral mortgage association. All the things we do to cut carbon add to upfront selling price, but don't pay off for a few years. The market discriminates against them. Connie Mae will help put those costs aside.

Tenth: SEC ought to require disclosure of carbon emissions in corporate reporting. Cites the recent call from Calpers. "It's a material risk."

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/3/21/64353/7250

but EVERYONE has the personal responsibility to assess their energy use and cut back as much as they can.

I will be moving from a 2-br house (soon to be demolished) into an apartment (1- or 2-br, undecided). Apartments/condos/townhouses have a much smaller carbon footprint because they are cheaper to heat and cool. Do I WANT to continue to live in a house? HELL, YES. But it's an inappropriate choice for me to be making.

I have chosen, for the past 16 years, to live where I work. No, it's NOT like all the nice places I lived growing up. Oh, well - such is life. I walk and use mass transit and ride my bike. I also drive, but I have made my choices and SACRIFICES and reaped the benefits as well.

What you say in words is "I can't". What I hear is "I won't".

On the gasoline part, it's an "I can't". I simply can't cut my use of gasoline when most of my driving is simply for work. As I stated before, my car gets 35+ mpg, and I'm not going to risk my life biking on dangerous roads at night.

On the electricity usage, "I won't" sacrifice certain parts of my lifestyle. I keep my air conditioner set on 70 degrees most of the time because that's where I feel comfortable. Believe me, the electric bill reflects it, but as long as I pay the bill, it's my business.

Our house is a little under 2000 square feet. No, I'm not moving. This is the first house I've ever owned, and I love it. I've lived in apartments, not going back.

You're partly right on your post. There's a lot of "I can't" involved, but there's also a lot of "I won't". You're also right when you talk about all of us having to make choices. I won't live some sort of 18th-century lifestyle. That's my choice.

Well.......in the end, you won't HAVE a choice.

I have spent ten years learing enough life skills that if I had to return to an 18th century lifestyle, I could manage. And it would never get that bad because we have more KNOWLEDGE now. We may lose conveniences, but we will not lose what we KNOW.

but I'm not going to unless I am forced. My family has a ranch and gardens, so we could manage quite nicely if need be. I could even give up the air conditioning, computers, etc., if necessary, but I'm not going to get that drastic quite yet.

As for saying that in the end I won't have a choice, I'm not convinced that climate change is going to destroy life as we know it, certainly not in my lifetime or my children's.

http://casaubonsbook.blogspot.com/2007/07/first-month-of-rioting-for-austerity.html

Remember, the goal is NOT to cut back 90% from what you are now using. The goal is to cut back 90% from where the average American is. If you already live a somewhat green lifestyle, you're part of the way there.

This guy and his wife in NYC with 1 kid are doing something similar:
http://noimpactman.typepad.com/blog/2007/02/the_no_impact_e.html

SOME people are thinking outside the box. SOME people are willing to make significant sacrifices. Apparently some people are counting on others to do the conserving so THEIR energy costs will stay lower, and that's not very nice.

I don't want to hear anymore about how you or anyone else CAN'T make changes. It's BS.

"I have no desire to sit around sweltering this time of year "

Deal with it. You'll have to one way or the other eventually ... or maybe you'll be dead and not have to worry about it once things really change.
I haven't used an air conditioner in 30 years in any apartment I personally have rented (I'm 50).
& I lived in the Midwest for a sizeable chunk of that time where it would stay in the 90s in the middle of the night.
I'm in NYC now which also can be quite sweltering.
& believe me, these days I can afford an air conditioner with no problem given my finances.
Americans (humans in general actually) are too damn selfish for their own good sometimes.
Maybe it would be a good thing for them to get wiped out, who knows?

You like to be cool?
In my book, your attitude is very uncool whether your body is cool or not.

Huh? I'm not quite sure what makes you think that you have the authority to tell me how to live my life. I'm running my central AC right now, and I'm also running a window unit in this room because, as I said earlier, I like to be cool. I don't feel the least bit guilty about it, as I'm the one paying the electric bill. If you're proud of yourself for sitting around sweating, good for you. If you want to go a step further and live in a cardboard box, have at it. I'm sure you will get a kick out of telling the few people who have any interest how environmentally conscious you are.

I really don't give a damn what you think of my attitude. You deal with it.

i have no desire to live in a cave

you'll be living in a cave for sure if we keep electing corporate Democrats who give you pretty answers to real problems.

care to elaborate on exactly how Clinton plans to bring about the reductions in CO2 emissions we need?

I've read her stuff. It doesn't get the job done. Makes for great campaign sound bites though ... those are her specialty ...

so, yes, it went over my head ... i have no idea if you're correct though.

i also was under the impression, unless I also misconstrued your "paid staff" thread, that you're supporting Hillary. is that correct? or have you befuddled me with satire?

on a serious note, I've read many of Hillary's speeches and I consider her environmental positions to be fine for marketing and campaigning and not too good at all if you take global warming seriously.

:)

if hillary gives us the same economy as bill, i will be quite happy. hillary clinton is pragmatic and gore is a zealot.

you do realize that if your electricity came from solar panels or wind turbines you could still live in your house, don't you?

Like it or not, you WILL have to reduce your fossil fuel usage. You can do it yourself voluntarily, or you can be forced to by circumstances, but it will happen.

"......Like it or not, you WILL have to reduce your fossil fuel usage. You can do it yourself voluntarily, or you can be forced to by circumstances, but it will happen......."

This is what folks don't seem to get.

http://casaubonsbook.blogspot.com/2007/07/first-month-of-rioting-for-austerity.html

http://simplereduce.wordpress.com/riot-for-austerity-90-reduction-project-intro/

The McMansion for two people may have to go, however.

:kick:

If we reduce our consumption that much, our domestic oil sources would suffice for some time.

I've been screaming into the wind here. And this is testament to the degree to which we must change.

By "we" I mean me. That is how this is going to happen. But in all honesty, with this many people, and with so many just beginning (China's GDP increased by 11% recently), I think the planet's troubles are racing forward without our best attention.

Yes, like someone above mentioned, how are we going to do this?

First, stabilize the population. No children. None, for the next few years. And already I can hear the resistance. Forget it.

And those two hour commutes?

And new computers?

And travel?

This is not going to go over well.

But, the alternative is... your guess is as good as mine. Just look at the Tour de France archives. You'll see the mountain passes full of snow in 1920, and totally devoid in 2007.


Edit- I want to clarify something. The reason I say no more kids is this. In America, and Europe, each new person means a car. A kid, a car. And that is not something that can be argued. When I grew up I got a car. When your kid grows up they will get a car. And a house. And... So therein lies one of the heaviest factors in the carbon footprint equation.

As you've noted before, it won't happen en masse until they HAVE to change.

If you're proactive, you are treated as strange or quaint.

The people where I work are still baffled by my statement the other day that my electric bill is down to $16.00 a month, but I'm trying to shave it even further.

My town is cut in half by a state highway, and is a city of 100,000+, which means a lot of cars at all times, and few safe places to ride a bike. Mass transit is (in my opinion) designed to keep people off of it. It would take 4 buses each way to get to work. Or, I can just continue to drive there in under 15 minutes.

On computing, I'm using a Mac Mini, which is 25x less powerdraw than my main computer (the one that now sits in the off position for all but 4 hours a week.)

So much could be done to reduce the waste which would bridge us nicely to true full scale reductions in the consumption that causes so many of our world's problems.

There's a recent New York Times article on how coal plants are being built at record pace, but solar research is almost at a standstill. I think it's something like a piddly $135 million per year goes into solar research. That's like a lunchbreak worth of time in Baghdad dollars.

When investing in solar is seen as the great investment that it is most certainly going to be, then we'll see the dollars going into it.

I'm not saying it very well. I just got this vision of Cheney realizing he could make money through the solar sales, and putting his money there instead of petroleum. Unfortunately, petroleum is still being used for combustive purposes. But it's going to end very shortly. We're running out, and the planet can't take much more. So it shouldn't be too long before we see renewable energy emerging as the big new economy.

And then the only concern we'll have is materials. Energy will be taken care of. Mostly.

This could have happened 30 years ago. These bastards are responsible for the destruction of the planet and the country. But that's history. Onward we must forge ahead with what's left.

I really respect people who understand and practice being frugal. It's hard to do in this society.

The Feds should be funding a national laboratory, you know, like the ones at the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, to design a cheap, sturdy, renewable material based solar array.

That's step 1.

Step 2: ALL new government buildings must be a minimum of 50% solar starting that day.

Step 3: ALL old government buildings in areas with the greatest benefit from solar power are to be retrofitted.

Etc. The statement has to be made that the future counts, that uncertainty in energy supplies can't shut us down, etc. The business community loves uptime. Onsite power generation via solar/wind reduces downtime due to bad grids, local utilities accidentally cutting the main lines, etc.

Buildings are still built without energy savings in mind. Houses are built with black shingle roofs that heat up and make the occupants use air conditioning more frequently. Etc.

It's maddening.

If the rest of the world wants to fight over declining oil fields, that's super. We should be making sure that we have the infrastructure to not require it in farming, pesticides, fertilizers, automobiles, etc.

I'm counting the days until my hybrid's warranty expires, and then I'll be converting it to plug-in hybrid.

does NOT mean zero children. zero children means a population reduction. that will lead to problems of its own down the line.

what you really want is an overall zero population growth. 1 person dies 1 person is born etc.

American's can't cut back 5% on potato chip consumption.

90% carbon reduction? Riiiight.

Love ya lots Al, but you're talkin' crazy now.

So what? He's not running for President. He's trying to save our lives.

Snark all you want. The man's a hero. And he speaks the truth.

plant trees where all the factories used to be and all along the interstates... It would help.

Riot for Austerity:
http://simplereduce.wordpress.com/riot-for-austerity90-rules/

EVERYBODY needs to step up to the plate, take a good hard look at their PERSONAL contribution to global warming, and do what they can. NOW.

That's five tanks total.

Not all of us live in inner cities, not all of us have public transportation, and not all of us can move to within walking/biking distance of where we work, particularly in the military.

I only live 20 minutes away from where I work. I'd be able to go to work for what about two months and then no more gas.

I understand the intent but 50 gallons per year is simply unrealistic.

Some of the other stuff I would have similar concerns about.

I think if the goal is to reach Joe Public, you are going to have to reach some happy medium, or else feel proud and morally correct but fail in your goal.

I can get by on 50 gallons or LESS a year if I have to. So can HUGE numbers of people.

Some people need to stop driving around for the hell of it, that much I can tell you.

where you live? Wow. Driving here is becoming more and more a premium. I hear comments from friends, neighbors, etc. that they can't drive to that end of town as it would take too much gas. Not too much 'time' but gas is becoming fixated in people's minds more and more and what that costs them. Electricity here in Illinois has skyrocketed in price - people are hyper about turning off their lights, cutting back on their air conditioning, etc. just to do what they can to keep their bills lower.

If alternative ways to get from here to there and light our homes could be found, people would glom onto it immediately.

since I never drive I don't need any. :)

Is only what economics and habit tells you that it is.

"Joe public" et al, will never change until circumstances compel them too- and only then after a lot of denial and pining for "the way it should be."

If you don't believe me, have a look at a magazine called "The Literary Digest." Pull copies from around 1928 to 1934. Among other things, have a glance at the advertisements over time.

first, suppose we required employers to cut commuting hours for their work force or face very stiff penalties. what might they do?

perhaps they would move closer to where their workers live. perhaps they might open satellite offices and reduce the footprint of the main office. perhaps they might encourage telecommuting. perhaps they might mandate 3 12-hour shifts instead of 5 8-hour shifts. perhaps they would organize car pooling or van service within the company. perhaps they would pressure local communities to provide some form of bus service or maybe they would even chip in for bus service.

the problem with the "I can't do this" is that you're not even trying.

When Gore is asked specific questions about how to reduce carbon emissions (like "should I buy a hybrid now, which will mean I won't have the money to buy a zero emission vehicle when they are supposed to come out, or should I keep my current gas only vehicle and save up for a zero emission vehicle?") his general advise is that everybody should do the best that they can to reduce their emissions down to zero, and if they can afford it, buy carbon offsets for the rest.

The reason for this is that currently the government and businesses don't provide all of us with the same kind of options - - or the options they provide are too expensive for most folks. For example, lets suppose we both own homes (I don't). Right now, if we wanted to buy a wind turbine to provide our houses with green power, it would cost us each somewhere between $9,000 - $12,000. In some places we'd get a tax break for installing the turbine, and in some places we could sell our excess power to the power company and make some money off our investment. But to get the tax break or sell back the power, we'd still need about $12,000 lying around to spend on installing a wind turbine.

What folks should do is use one of the carbon calculators online and figure out what their carbon footprint is right now, and see how much carbon they are creating compared to the average. I think the best one is at Earthlab.com:

http://www.earthlab.com/

My score right now on using this tool is 212, which means I produce 5 tons of carbon per year. The US average score is 345, which means the average american produces 14.7 tons of carbon per person per year.

Once you know how big your carbon footprint actually is, you can make informed choices about how to reduce it further.

lessening the amount of tankfulls used also can be done by driving a far more efficient car and demanding that detroit makes more efficent cars.

Edwards just recently built a 28,000 sq foot house and he is running for president calling himself an environmentalist.

The only real possible solution is a stiff gasoline and carbon tax which is probably political suicide. My guess is nothing gets done.

Gasoline taxes, while they might be a very effective "market mechanism", are horrendously regressive. Absent real mass transit systems, gasoline, unfortunately, is a necessity for many people. They need gas to get to work or take care of other necessities.

What we have right now, and more so if we levy stiff gasoline taxes to reduce demand, is a system of "price based rationing." That's gas rationing that let's the wealthy get all they want and blocks those who can't afford gasoline from even getting the amount they need. That's not fair. It imposes its rationing much more harshly on the poor than on the wealthy.

If the goal is to force reductions in gasoline use, every citizen should be asked to make an equal sacrifice. Gas taxes fail to achieve that.

For industry, many seem eager to implement a "cap and trade" system. The idea would be that if you don't use your allotment, you could sell your extra allocation to someone who needs more. Perhaps a similar system could be considered for individuals.

It is the use of gasoline and carbon that needs to be taxed to solve the problem. This is because carbon needs to be reduced.

The money from the tax can go to mass transit, etc, but anything other than a gasoline tax with global warming is just a way around the issue and is not doing squat. If C02 is causing the problem, this needs to be taxed. The tax needs to be stiff enough to discourage consumption. Nothing else is going to work.

For example, if you raise MPG all that will happen is people will drive more. This is not a real solution.

And I dint see anyway to implement your equal sacrifice option in any effective manner without it just being the equivalent of a gasoline tax.

help this greatly. Problem is, we needed to have started yesterday. If we don't get someone in the WH in 08 who gets right on this, encouraging R & D and investment in existing green technologies and solutions, those of us who survive will be in caves.

Come on people. We are Americans and have in the past risen to difficult occasions with courage and ingenuity. Green technology could be the next dot.com economy and shot in the arm our economy needs.

i don't think we can sit around waiting for the magic bullet to be invented. i think we need to begin an aggressive conservation program today. as new technology becomes available, we can always relax mandatory conservation requirements.

the Energy Bill just passed by the Democratic majority will reduce our barrels per day of oil use by a whopping 2.5$ by the year 2020. that is just way, way too slow.

we may not be able to achieve a 90% reduction anytime soon but we damned well better do more than our playing-it-self political process has called for ...

Meaning that instead of there being a single technology that will solve the problems, but a collection of technologies and conservation practices that, combined, will solve the problem.

we need to do both energy conservation and introduce new technologies. There are new techs already being used elsewhere - just not here. A concerted effort and openness to working toward this goal will make the difference.

He said that the free market would solve all of our energy problems. He was so arrogant in this regard that he took down the solar panels that Carter had installed on the White House.

Yea, Reagan did a lot of wonderful things while he was in office. Like give tax cuts to people who don't need them and sell weapons to Iran.

on the planet.

Too many to exist in our current fossil fuel driven reality.

When we find a way to harness the power of the universe, extract that energy that exists everywhere, in everything, then population will not matter.

Until the, friends and neighbors, stop having more than one child.

.02¢

i've been meaning to write a thread on this issue one of these days. talk about one of the great American taboos.

right now, our tax code gives a special tax discount to parents with children. i suppose the idea is to recognize how expensive it is to have kids. well, kindly though that may be, maybe we should be giving larger tax discounts to people who don't have kids. perhaps none of this tax code manipulation is warranted when there isn't a bona fide economic need. maybe this special tax treatment should only be available to people with income below a certain level.

so, zero kids = big discount; one kid slightly smaller discount; two kids smaller still and so on ... more than three kids, maybe start tacking on surcharges ...

but nooooooooo, can't tinker with the taboos ...

the Census Bureau study referenced in the OP says that our population will double by the end of the century. double traffic. double crowded schools. double water needs. double energy demands. technology might help a little; it's hard to imagine we can handle a doubling of population. our political systems won't dare address these realities ... it doesn't make the problems any less real ...

Bush- There's a lot of people. Ok. We know this. This Center Bureau thing was redundant and wasteful and not at all geared toward winning the War on Terror© . Now watch this drive.

Introduction:
http://simplereduce.wordpress.com/riot-for-austerity-90-reduction-project-intro

Yahoo group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/90percentreduction

It is amazing to look at my Grandparents generation who scrimped and saved, rationed and reused, and tore up their lawns to plant victory gardens so farm produce could be devoted to feeding the troops fighting Hitler and compare people today who scream bloody murder if you even imply cutting down a bit on energy usage might be a nice thing for all of humanity including that individual. Even a token effort of changing a light bulb to a lower wattage if not to a compact fluorescent is to onerous. It would be rather fascinating if not for the fact that damage to the environment effects all people. well maybe not the very richest who can build themselves a golden lifeboat stockpiled with goodies to ride out climate change in. It is those on the lower end of the economic spectrum who will suffer the most.

Do what you can when you can. Put up a clothsline, turn off the water when brushing your teeth, turn off the lights when you leave the room, try going 2 degrees warmer in on hot days and 2 degrees colder on cold days, stick a few buckets under your house eves to catch rainwater for your plants ir if you have the $ to spare put in a rain barrel.

Thanks

this message would be the TeeVee (except Fox)

Thanks for the thread welshTerrier.

i'll be using this book to decide whether I'd like to support him if he runs. either way, I definitely would like to see him run. to put this delicately, the current "dialog" among the candidates is totally inadequate. I'm confident Gore would change that if he jumps in.

I've heard great things about the book; I hope I see some of my deepest values and ideas reflected in his words. And I hope Gore's words also open my eyes to new ideas.

If you enjoy history, philosophy, mass psychology, sociology and how it has all come to play in bringing about our current circumstances, you will have what I've heard some people describe as a Gorgasim.

It is fantastic.

That, and population reduction. No more than 2 kids per family, MAXIMUM.

Anyone who tells you otherwise is a liar or a fool.

Edit: I understand Gore himself has three kids...not a good role model.