When Al Gore endorsed Barack Obama a while back, the former Vice President said he’d continue to present ambitious agendas to address global warming, that may or may not be entirely in line with the Democratic agenda. He clearly meant it.
Former Vice President Al Gore said on Thursday that Americans must abandon fossil fuels within a decade and rely on the sun, the winds and other environmentally friendly sources of power, or risk losing their national security as well as their creature comforts.
“The survival of the United States of America as we know it is at risk,” Mr. Gore said in a speech to an energy conference here. He called for the kind of concerted national effort that enabled Americans to walk on the moon 39 years ago this month, just eight years after President John F. Kennedy famously embraced that goal.
Mr. Gore said the goal of producing all of the nation’s electricity from “renewable energy and truly clean, carbon-free sources” within 10 years is not some farfetched vision, although he said it would require fundamental changes in political thinking and personal expectations.
“This goal is achievable, affordable and transformative,” Gore speech, presented to the media, said. “It represents a challenge to all Americans, in every walk of life — to our political leaders, entrepreneurs, innovators, engineers, and to every citizen.”
What’s more, Gore explained why this issue extends beyond environmental considerations, and warned of “dangerous national security implications,” stemming from refugees, instability, and a dependence on foreign oil.
Gore’s pitch is ambitious, but in many ways, practical. I’d encourage folks to check out the Alliance for Climate Protection for additional information. Today’s speech is a key moment. The NYT’s Andrew Revkin has Gore’s entire speech, and is going over the proposal in detail. [Update: Obama responded quickly to Gore’s speech, issuing a statement: “I strongly agree with Vice President Gore… those are the investments I will make as President.”]
Gven the landscape and time of year, there was also a campaign angle to all of this.
The AP reported:
Just as John F. Kennedy set his sights on the moon, Al Gore is challenging the nation to produce every kilowatt of electricity through wind, sun and other Earth-friendly energy sources within 10 years, an audacious goal he hopes the next president will embrace.
The Nobel Prize-winning former vice president said fellow Democrat Barack Obama and Republican rival John McCain are “way ahead” of most politicians in the fight against global climate change.
I can appreciate why Gore is willing to compliment McCain on this issue; Bill Clinton recently did the same thing.
And if we’re judging McCain on a sliding Republican scale, then sure, he’s not quite as reckless and irresponsible on environmental issues than some of his fellow conservatives. He believes global warming is real and he doesn’t believe trees cause pollution. If the soft bigotry of low expectations means anything, McCain looks pretty good in comparison to, say, James Inhofe.
But part of the problem is that McCain’s commitment to sensible environmental policies is a bit like the weather in Chicago: if you don’t like it, wait a few minutes, because it’s bound to change.
[A]n examination of McCain’s voting record shows an inconsistent approach to the environment: He champions some “green” causes while casting sometimes contradictory votes on others.
The senator from Arizona has been resolute in his quest to impose a federal limit on greenhouse gas emissions, even when it means challenging his own party. But he has also cast votes against tightening fuel-efficiency standards and resisted requiring public utilities to offer a specific amount of electricity from renewable sources. He has worked to protect public lands in his home state, winning a 2001 award from the National Parks Conservation Association for helping give the National Park Service some say over air tours around the Grand Canyon, work that prompts former interior secretary and Arizona governor Bruce Babbitt to call him “a great friend of the canyon.” But he has also pushed to set aside Endangered Species Act protections when they conflict with other priorities, such as the construction of a University of Arizona observatory on Mount Graham.
McCain’s lifetime League of Conservation Voters score is 24%. That’s better than some Republicans, but for those who take the environment seriously, it pales in comparison to the 86% rating that Obama earned from the LCV.
LCV President Gene Karpinski tells audiences about McCain’s environmental scorecard rating, he said, “jaws drop…. I tell them, ‘He’s not as green as you think he is.'”
Another part of the problem, as Sam Stein explained recently, is that McCain has a nasty habit of promoting environmental policies he’s already voted against.
Over the past few years, Sen. John McCain has earned maverick stripes by taking a stance on climate change that few of his Republican colleagues would dare to toe. It is a political unorthodoxy that has had its benefits on the presidential campaign trail as well. Today, for instance, the Senator is slated to appear before a wind power plant to tout the merits of such environmentally friendly technologies.
“Wind power is one of many alternative energy sources that are changing our economy for the better,” read McCain’s prepared remarks. “And one day they will change our economy forever.”
But back in 2005, when McCain had the chance to vote for a bill that would have included the largest expansion of financial incentives to produce clean wind energy, he didn’t.
McCain reversed course on the Lieberman/Warner legislation to combat global warming. More recently, McCain suggested his cap-and-trade policy wouldn’t have mandatory emissions caps.
Is McCain “way ahead” of most politicians? Maybe in today’s Republican Party, but he’s not where Americans need him to be.