Al Gore's Ten-Year Plan

Replace ALL electrical generation?!?!

At last!  We have it!  Al Gore's Plan to Save the World!

Last week, the Goracle spoke forth his pronouncements of the penance we Americans must perform to atone for our manifold environmental sins.  Time magazine reports:

Speaking in Washington on July 17, Gore called on Americans to completely abandon electricity generated by fossil fuels within 10 years, and replace them with carbon-free renewables like solar, wind and geothermal. It is a bold plan, almost to the point of folly. But at the very least, it's one that certainly matches the scale of his rhetoric. "The survival of the United States of America as we know it is at risk," he said. "The future of human civilization is at stake." [emphasis added]

By way of comparison, the pie chart in this article shows that we currently derive 3% of our electricity from so-called "modern" carbon-neutral means.  The only carbonless method of electrical generation which has been proven able to produce unlimited quantities of electricity - nuclear power - is, of course, the only source of energy which environmentalists hate even more than they hate fossil fuels.

Even the reporters at Time, passionate converts to the First Church of Global Warming that they are, had a difficult time swallowing Gore's latest oraculation.

Wind and solar are growing far faster than fossil fuels such as coal or natural gas, but considering that we don't even know if economical carbon capture and storage will ever be possible, it's hard to see how Gore's target is remotely attainable. This isn't negative thinking, or fiction put out by the oil industry. This is reality. [emphasis added]

Nice to learn that Time has at least a tenuous grasp on that slippery concept so difficult for liberals to grasp - reality.  It's not as if the facts about energy use aren't known.  Data are all over the web, and the data show that Gore really is talking out of his hat.

Consider for a moment that it takes nine years to replace half of the cars on the road and that cars have a tremendously shorter lifespan than power generating plants.  It's clear that Al has spent his life in politics, not in engineering.  Yet again, we see a ludicrous solution presented to a non-problem that will accomplish nothing at great expense.

Mr. Gore need not subscribe to Scragged in order for him to figure this out.  He needn't even ask Google; he need merely speak with his butler about his most recent home electric bills.

You may recall the derision and laughter surrounding Mr. Gore's personal family home, or should we say, palatial mansion.  While he was flitting hither and thither in a carbon-spewing private jet, preaching repentance, sackcloth, and ashes, and calling for sacrifice from all and sundry in the name of using less energy... well, his own home electricity consumption was twenty times that of the average American house.  No shared sacrifice here!

Apparently snickers from the peasantry reached even his noble and august ears.  Over the last year, Mr. Gore has invested heavily in energy efficiency, green technology, and carbon-neutral power generation for his home.  He's installed extra insulation, new solar panels, improved ductwork, and of course those silly twisty compact-fluorescent bulbs that pollute the ground with mercury in lieu of polluting the air with carbon dioxide, all in the name of living up to his exalted status as High Priest of the Church of Global Warming.

We can now reveal the payback from his major investment in the most modern, up-to-date, state-of-the-art gold standard in energy efficient living.  According to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research:

Since taking steps to make his home more environmentally-friendly last June, Gore devours an average of 17,768 kWh per month - 1,638 kWh more energy per month than the year before the renovations.

There you have it, folks.  Al Gore clearly does not believe in his own alarmism, since he's happily consuming vastly more energy than us ordinary folks.  Not only that, when he "invests" in an attempt to reduce his carbon footprint, the long and the short of it is that his problem gets worse.

This is the guy to whom we are supposed to listen if we want to save the world?  He'd've done better to leave well enough alone at his house; why should we apply his policy recommendations to our houses?  We see the same truth on the global scale, where U.S. greenhouse gas emissions increased 6.6 percent since 1997, when Kyoto was agreed, compared with 18 percent for the entire world and 22 percent for the "less selfish" countries who signed on to Kyoto.

No wonder Mr. Gore doesn't bother asking his chauffeur not to leave his limousine idling outside the hall while he's giving a speech.  It's just not that big of a deal.  He knows it.  You know it.  We listen to him anyway.  Who's the fool now?

Read other articles by Hobbes or other articles on Environment.
Reader Comments
"Mr. Gore need not subscribe to Scragged in order for him to figure this out. He needn't even ask Google; he need merely speak with his butler about his most recent home electric bills."

HAHAHAHA! I read about this and couldn't believe it. Someone I know once said he's a great businessman. Really? How could you spend all that money, make **NEGATIVE** progress and think it was all a success?!?
July 21, 2008 4:43 PM
Hey, that man invented the internet, you can't expect him to be good at everything!
July 21, 2008 10:33 PM
I have two proposals. Neither will ever actually happen, but it would be nice:

1) Sue Al Gore (class-action, if possible), not for money, but to get an injunction requiring him to live in accordance with what he is asking of everyone else.

Too bad the courts would probably screw that up.

2) Let's declare a national "Green Month" - ONE MONTH where the enviro-wackos get their way. No coal-burning power, no oil drilling or refining - you know the list. Let the people of this country live the way these radicals want us to live, for 30 days.

We would never listen to them again.

Too bad there's no leader with the cojones to actually do something like that.
July 22, 2008 11:31 AM
Those are two VERY good idea, actually. The second would be far worse of course because we'd all have to live that way with them. Could the country actually manage to do that for one month? Missile defense systems require fuel, etc.
July 22, 2008 5:03 PM
Add Your Comment...
4000 characters remaining
Loading question...