Former Vice President Al Gore can be annoyingly self-righteous in his adopted role as spokesman for Earth, but he does serve to keep the environment in the public conscience. Even those who don’t share his apocalyptic view of global warming are mindful that there are limits to how much pollution we can stand and are concerned about what kind of habitat we will leave our descendants.
Last week Gore challenged the United States to do away with all carbon-emitting forms of electricity production within 10 years — replacing them with alternatives such as solar, wind and geothermal power, conservation and “clean-coal technology” (which captures and stores all carbon emissions).
That latter item will anger some of his own allies in the environmental movement who scoff at the notion that anything involving coal could ever be considered “clean,” but it shows Gore has not gone completely off the deep end. There remains a great abundance of coal, and if technology reduces or eliminates its drawbacks we should use it.
Gore did not call for an increase in nuclear power, which produces about 20 percent of electricity. Coal-fired plants generate about half; natural gas and hydroelectric dams most of the rest (oil isn’t commonly burned for electricity). Renewable sources account for only 3 percent of the nation’s electricity.
That 10-year timetable is ambitious bordering on absurd, but as Gore noted the nation went from blowing up rockets on launch pads to putting a man on the moon within that span in the 1960s.
Both candidates have said climate change is a primary concern, and both have saluted Gore for his efforts to recruit Americans into the effort. The key will be whether either man, once in the Oval Office, will put the weight of the White House into that effort. If the next president does that, Gore’s 10-year timetable will become a lot more realistic.
Press and Sun-Bulletin Binghamton/AP
