It’s obvious that Al Gore gets it. Ending dependence upon oil is not only possible, it’s absolutely essential to the survival of the United States of America as it exists today. Sign the We Campaign and watch the video.
At about 19:30 of the video, Gore specifically mentions reducing “payroll taxes” and instead taxing unwanted carbon emissions. “Tax what you burn, not what you earn.”
He also highlights that as money is given to oil companies by governments in a vain attempt to reduce the cost of gasoline, the cost is reaching record levels and so too are company profits. Although with solar electricity, the more people who use that power source, the lower the price!
And as the demand for renewable energy grows, the costs will continue to fall. Let me give you one revealing example: the price of the specialized silicon used to make solar cells was recently as high as $300 per kilogram. But the newest contracts have prices as low as $50 a kilogram.
There is more inspiring vision in Gore’s speech than in any other I’ve heard. There are jobs to be had for any job lost in moving away from carbon fuel sources. And if we want to be leaders, we have to move first.
It doesn’t matter if you don’t think global warming is worth doing something about, because it’s undeniable that the world will be a better place if there are more green-economy jobs at home, and no dependence upon foreign oil. I know we can do this within 10 years. Entire fleets of vehicles were created and built more than 60 years ago in the second World War — there’s nothing stopping us from doing the same to our fleets now, except will power and vision. Al Gore has provided the vision to seize on to, let’s do it already!
@hotmail.com
![[EFC Blue Ribbon - Free Speech Online]](http://www.efc.ca/images/efcfreet.gif)
Matthew James Didier | 19-Jul-08 at 5:45 am | Permalink
I totally agree with everything… except the messenger. The reason there is such resistance to these changes is because Gore has politicized that which should never have been a political situation. Ergo: “Democrats” believe in clean and renewable sources of energy… and therefore “Republicans” must be against them.
It shouldn’t be like that… and the only people we can really lay the blame on is a president who’s personal wealth is derived from oil and an “opposite” number who just happens to be a mucky-muck in the party opposed to that president.
The issue is REAL SCIENCE and yes, even real economists know that we must move away from fossil fuels… too bad instead of REAL “anyone” making that case, it was a politician who wasn’t (and isn’t) in a power position and is soundly loathed in his opposite quarter.
JimBobby | 19-Jul-08 at 9:06 am | Permalink
Whooee! Well, Matthew, I reckon if a Democrat were to tell everybody to refrain from jumping off tall buildings, the Republican message would be, “Jump!” On principle, of course.
Blame Gore? Sure, if blaming the messenger is what you want. The newly-dubbed “green Pope” is on the move in private jets and luxury cruise liners preaching the same message as Gore. Are non-Catholics or non-Christians going to worry that Ratzenberger is religisizing a scientific issue?
Climate change action requires politicians to take action. Politicians run countries and set policies. It is the job of those politicians to serve and protect their constituency. Climate change threatens health, welfare and the economy — all issues relegated to the politicians who run the world.
If it wasn’t Gore being villainized by the special interests, it would be some other guru. Here in Canada, we have the messenger David Suzuki to take the heat. Although Suzuki is not, by any stretch, a politician, the attacks on him are very similar to the attacks on messenger Gore.
It’s the message that they are attempting to obfuscate and negate. Attacking the messengers is one weapon in the arsenal. Regardless of who carries the message, they will face attacks from the vested interests and their not-so-sharp lackeys and dupes.
JB
Timothy Webster | 19-Jul-08 at 11:13 am | Permalink
As oil supply tightens and related cost rise, those who waste the most will fall the hardest. Actually this is a blessing, because otherwise I really think we would destroy the earth before we get a clue and stop wasting so much.
The age of the automobile/car, uninsulated homes and excessive water usage is drawing to a close. You can still see a hit around Broadway, Saskatoon of how cities where constructed before the automobile. Cities where built for people not cars.
Managing land resource usage is key in the future. In 20 years assuming the tar sands triples every 5 years, which it appears to be doing, it will have expended to 81 times its current size. And may have only a few years accessible oil left at that point.
Saskboy | 19-Jul-08 at 11:16 am | Permalink
JB’s right, the messenger wouldn’t matter. The key is that their ideas are heard by everyone who is interested, and also those who are right now, not.
If you pop over to a climate change denier’s blog, it tends to be rife with scorn for both Gore and Suzuki, in the same breath usually. Their backgrounds have nothing in common, yet they are both smart enough to know that solving dependence upon oil energy is key to reducing harm to our health, economy, and security.
Saskboy | 19-Jul-08 at 11:22 am | Permalink
Timothy, there are places in Regina that have me cringe. There’s a 100m property fence in Hillsdale that senselessly stops pedestrians from taking even a small shortcut if walking north/south beside the Wascana Parkway. The Wascana Centre Authority regularly waters the sidewalks and lawns until you can hear the water running into the storm drains for an hour. Then city engineers complain that we don’t have enough sewage pipe capacity to build any more homes.
There are little solutions like those, that can be changed so long as attitudes are fixed. We’d have shorter walks, more water, and more infrastructure capacity if they put a gate in the fence, and stopped over watering the pavement (even while it’s raining).
Matthew James Didier | 19-Jul-08 at 11:56 am | Permalink
“Whooee! Well, Matthew, I reckon if a Democrat were to tell everybody to refrain from jumping off tall buildings, the Republican message would be, “Jump!” On principle, of course.”
Seems that way now, don’t it?
“JB’s right, the messenger wouldn’t matter. The key is that their ideas are heard by everyone who is interested, and also those who are right now, not.”
…and in your perfect world…
Suzuki became “Public Enemy #1″ for the illiterate AFTER Gore… Suzuki’s been singing the song for decades longer than Gore, but no one noticed and ranted back then to the same extent.
Sorry folks, we’ll have to agree to disagree… I would LOVE to believe that EVERYONE, for the sake of what NEEDS to be done would do it when LOGIC DICTATES and partisanship plays no part in what’s best for us all…
…but it shore don’t seem that way, now do it?
Question: If a company is trying to drum up business with newspaper ads and that doesn’t work, most marketing people would tend to suggest a move to radio and if possible, television… how come this message can’t do the same? Must we bang the same drum without looking for other sources to get the message out there that AREN’T as politicized… or is I that dum and that’s wun of them krazee idears…?
JimBobby | 20-Jul-08 at 12:38 pm | Permalink
Question: If a company is trying to drum up business with newspaper ads and that doesn’t work, most marketing people would tend to suggest a move to radio and if possible, television… how come this message can’t do the same? Must we bang the same drum without looking for other sources to get the message out there that AREN’T as politicized… or is I that dum and that’s wun of them krazee idears…?
Have you seen any of the ads on TV from ol’ T. Boone Pickens? T.Boone is a bigass Texas oil blujillionaire. He’s pushin’ hard fer wind farms out on the Merkan plains. He’s been on the TV hypin’ the idea. From what I hear-tell, he’s lookin’ fer bigass investors and the TV campaign is aimed at attracting ‘em.
Oil and energy are all tied up with geopolitics. It will not be possible to divorce environmental awareness and concern from politics. That doesn’t mean one side must be pro-Mother Earth and the other side anti-Mother Earth. Or that there are only two sides.
We have several Canadian parties all agreeing that climate change action is necessary but disagreeing on tactics. Partisanship doesn’t preclude broad general agreement on obvious things, like the desirability of reducing our reliance on and use of fossil fuels.
JB