First, my take on why now. Obama has already said he’d be keen to give Gore a senior and strategic role in his administration. This indicates that Obama, on the energy and climate file, is prepared to do something bold. So, it makes sense that Gore would come out and float this ambitious bold proposal of his outside of the political arena and well in advance of the run-up to the November election. It gives both Obama and McCain a chance to react, and it gives the public a chance to absorb what Gore is saying — and having read his speech closely, he has effectively summed up the problem and the solution. If the public generally rejects what Gore is saying, then no damage to Obama and he gets a better sense of what the public is willing to tolerate. If the public is inspired and embraces the challenge, then Obama equally embraces the challenge and, upon being elected, brings Gore on to manage the transition.

Maybe I’m dreaming — but it makes a whole lot of sense to me.

Here, to me, are some of the most important quotes from Gore’s speech:

On economic, environmental and national security concerns

“When we look at all three of these seemingly intractable challenges at the same time, we can see the common thread running through them, deeply ironic in its simplicity: our dangerous over-reliance on carbon-based fuels is at the core of all three of these challenges… We’re borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet. Every bit of that’s got to change… if we grab hold of that common thread and pull it hard, all of these complex problems begin to unravel and we will find that we’re holding the answer to all of them right in our hand. The answer is to end our reliance on carbon-based fuels.”

“Those those who say the costs (of renewables) are still too high: I ask them to consider whether the costs of oil and coal will ever stop increasing if we keep relying on quickly depleting energy sources to feed a rapidly growing demand all around the world. When demand for oil and coal increases, their price goes up. When demand for solar cells increases, the price often comes down. When we send money to foreign countries to buy nearly 70 percent of the oil we use every day, they build new skyscrapers and we lose jobs. When we spend that money building solar arrays and windmills, we build competitive industries and gain jobs here at home.”

On importance of grid modernization

“To be sure, reaching the goal of 100 percent renewable and truly clean electricity within 10 years will require us to overcome many obstacles. At present, for example, we do not have a unified national grid that is sufficiently advanced to link the areas where the sun shines and the wind blows to the cities in the East and the West that need the electricity. Our national electric grid is critical infrastructure, as vital to the health and security of our economy as our highways and telecommunication networks. Today, our grids are antiquated, fragile, and vulnerable to cascading failure. Power outages and defects in the current grid system cost US businesses more than $120 billion dollars a year. It has to be upgraded anyway.”

On the link between a smart grid and electric cars

“We could further increase the value and efficiency of a Unified National Grid by helping our struggling auto giants switch to the manufacture of plug-in electric cars. An electric vehicle fleet would sharply reduce the cost of driving a car, reduce pollution, and increase the flexibility of our electricity grid.”

On the need for a price on carbon

“We could and should speed up this transition by insisting that the price of carbon-based energy include the costs of the environmental damage it causes. I have long supported a sharp reduction in payroll taxes with the difference made up in CO2 taxes. We should tax what we burn, not what we earn. This is the single most important policy change we can make.” (I should point out that in Canada, the opposition Liberals have come up with a “GreenShift” strategy that argues for exactly that)

On how the U.S. political system is f^%$#$ up

“It is only a truly dysfunctional system that would buy into the perverse logic that the short-term answer to high gasoline prices is drilling for more oil ten years from now. Am I the only one who finds it strange that our government so often adopts a so-called solution that has absolutely nothing to do with the problem it is supposed to address? When people rightly complain about higher gasoline prices, we propose to give more money to the oil companies and pretend that they’re going to bring gasoline prices down. It will do nothing of the sort, and everyone knows it. If we keep going back to the same policies that have never ever worked in the past and have served only to produce the highest gasoline prices in history alongside the greatest oil company profits in history, nobody should be surprised if we get the same result over and over again.”

On the thirst for change

“I’ve begun to hear different voices in this country from people who are not only tired of baby steps and special interest politics, but are hungry for a new, different and bold approach.”

Finally, on the virtue of being a leader

“It is a great error to say that the United States must wait for others to join us in this matter. In fact, we must move first, because that is the key to getting others to follow; and because moving first is in our own national interest.”

These are inspirational comments. We’ll have to wait and see how the U.S. public reacts.

UPDATE: I’ve read a lot of blogs, many of them focused on cleantech, that are focusing on the “craziness” of Gore’s 10-year target. Is it realistic? Well, let’s just say in theory it’s not impossible, but in practice it’s not likely to happen. But rather than criticize Gore’s challenge by focusing on the timeline, I think it’s more important to look at why Gore is doing what he’s doing. I mean, I’m no expert, but clearly this isn’t about laying out a detailed plan that he hopes politicians will adopt and implement. What it’s about — and this is what he achieved in An Inconvenient Truth — is massaging the public and its perception of what can and should be done. The public wants leadership, and it wants to feel that a difficult path taken can make a difference. Gore himself explained why the target is 10 and not 40 years. Basically, it’s because politics and public lose interest after 10 years and longer targets can be too easily forgotten or abandoned. As I’ve said in comments on other blogs, is it better to run hard for something you believe in for 10 years and fall short of your target, or walk over 40 years and forget what that target was? As I said above, I think Gore is priming the pump — getting a sense of what people are willing to get behind, and then building on that momentum heading into the November presidential election. So for those focusing on Gore’s seemingly crazy 10-year target, well, I think you’re missing the point of this exercise.

This entry was posted on Thursday, July 17th, 2008 at 6:59 pm and is filed under Main Page. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.