When a Trillion Dollars Looks Like a Bargain

Washington, DC -- A trillion dollars is the cost former Vice-President Gore attached to his proposed national effort to solve global warming last week.  Saying "together we can solve this challenge," Gore laid down a new, bold marker: Shift our economy entirely to carbon-free, renewable electricity in a decade. "To those who say ten years is not enough time, I respectfully ask them to consider what the world's scientists are telling us about the risks we face if we don't act in ten years," he said. He attached a trillion dollar price tag -- probably as a means of conveying just how big a job this is -- and in that he is right.

But the price tag is actually a bargain -- because every year we currently spend $700 billion importing oil, and we will shortly hit the trillion-dollar-a-year mark for that one fossil fuel alone. The real challenge isn't that we can't afford a carbon-free economy -- because it's not that big a bill. The awesomely difficult -- perhaps impossible -- challenge will be getting it done in a decade. But the closer we can come, the smaller will be the bill we face for all the things we didn't do back when we had more time -- going all the way back to Rio in 1988.

Are Americans ready? Every day, more and more of them are. In his speech, Gore commented that we needed to move from changing lightbulbs to changing leadership. And on the same night that he spoke, ordinary citizens gathered in more than 300 house parties organized by the Sierra Club as part of our Lightbulbs to Leadership campaign -- it's almost as if the Vice-President had read our action kit.

Comments

[zibiza]

Hi Carl - saw you on the Colbert Show yesterday and found out more about the Sierra Club than I have in the 10 years I've lived in the USA (no fault of the Sierra Club - my bad). I believe what you all are doing is really meaningful and also you're getting results for all of us now and for all of our futures. So now I'll join up. Thank you - have a great day.

[Richard H. Schwartz]

I completely agree.

but, why is the environmental movement ignoring the importance of a major shift toward plant-based diets. According to a 2006 UN report, animal-based agriculture emits more greenhouse gases (in CO2 equivalents) than all of the cars, plaanes, ships and other forms of transportation worldwide combined (18% vs. 13.5%). And that same report indicates that the number of farmed animals is projected to double in about 50 years. If that happens, the increased greenhouse emissions would negate the effects of many positive changes like increased fuel efficiency cars.

So, I hope that the Sierra Club and other envionmental groups will lead efforts to educate people about these issues, thereby helping shift our imperiled planet to a sustainable path.

[BobNorsen]

MayDay, SOS
At the present CO2 level we
are melting polar ice. Like in your drink, when the ice is gone warming will speed.
When polar ice is gone will Tundra warming be far behind? When Tundra warms Methane will follow. We have NO WAY to control methane once it is being released.

640M years ago a release of methane trapped solar heat, warmed "Snowball Earth". Melted mile thick ice. Gave us our lovely climate. What will another blast of methane do? Warm Earth another 100Deg F?

The only stop of methane is to reduce CO2, cool Earth before methane gets away.
How to reduce CO2? Stop burning carbon for heat.

Earth offers unlimited free
clean available heat as GEO-thermal. World wide, GEO is the ONE energy source big enough, cheap enough to let us stop burning carbon. The
conversion would inspire world economy, inspire the world's people. We won WW2 in 5 years. This is WW3. Far more urgent than was WW2. WW3, a constructive war to save Earth from people's error.
We can win WW3 in 5 years if
we the people go to work!
Forget all else. Nothing else matters. Nothing else will benefit humanity more!

We the people must force our "leaders" to lead. To save Earth from a climate like Venus. We don't know how much time we have. God forbid that we ever know how much time we had. Bob
bob@bnbrew.com

[Evan]

I totally agree that we need to eliminate our use of oil and coal as energy sources. My only problem is that neither Al Gore nor the Sierra Club have suggested how this will happen. I think it should be done & that it can be done in 10 years, but how it is done is the most important aspect. I think that granting our Federal Government the powers to completely rearrange our domestic energy industry would be disasterous. Our politicians are in the hands of big oil, big coal, and big agribiz; we simply cannot trust our corrupt, wasteful Federal Government to handle something so important. This is a task for the people of this nation to step up & solve. High gas prices are already providing incentive. I hear so much about Gore's great initiative, but if he's suggesting we abdicate the responsibility to make this happen to the US Government, then he is a fool.

[Carl Pope]

Thanks for the kinds words, zibiza. There's a lot of exciting work to be done, and we're happy to have you aboard.

[Louie-Jean Taylor]

I have to agree with Evan. I don't believe our government can change direction. Perhas the big foundations out there can fund the research, Find something other than corn to grow for fuel and feed and support the farmers doing the experimenting. Most of the fertilizers used to sustain one crop farms are oil related as well. Farmers don't have the money to experiment and need to be helped with the changes. Louie-Jean

[ntd]

Carl,

You and the rest of the Bush haters will have to come up with another excuse for your sorry existance pretty soon. Hope you like the next one.

ntd

[citizenstx]

I don't know about Carl, but as a Bush Hater of long standing I can tell you that I count the days until I don't have him to kick around anymore. Fine with me if he wants to leave early. . .