Gore's Goals

Al Gore's WE Campaign has set an aggressive goal of replacing 100% of our electricity generation with clean energy sources. The goal has been widely criticized as too aggressive, impossible to meet, and unrealistic.

Is it?

It is certainly aggressive. It is more ambitious than any other widely supported plan, and would require a massive effort, massive capital expenditures and the subsequent rate increases, and create its own set of environmental, economic and social problems.

But I believe it is possible, and not that unrealistic.

From a technical standpoint, it's much less of a challenge than putting a man on the moon was when proposed by Kennedy. It will require more dollars, even in real terms, but we know how to do it, the technology is proven (although improvements would help), and it doesn't necessarily require any scientific breakthroughs.

It's mostly just a matter of priorities and funding.

I also believe we won't meet that goal.

I saw a phrase once that politics is the art of deciding who's ox gets gored, and there are too many oxen that will need to be gored to meet the goal. And those oxen are owned by powerful people and corporations that will fight hard to make sure we don't even try to meet it. Right now I believe they control enough of the political apparatus to win this battle, but I'm hoping that is changing, at least some.

I'm not sure where I stand on whether we should meet that goal. If climate change is happening as fast as some fear, then, yes. The damage of climate change will be far more costly and destructive than the disruption and cost of converting electric system to clean generation.

If climate change is coming a little slower than the alarmists fear, then I'm not so sure the disruption of changing to clean generation so quickly is worth it.

However, I strongly believe we need to make that change. The question is not whether to move to clean generation, but how quickly.

For now, I believe the best course of action is to make sure all new or replacement generation is clean - no new or replacement fossil fueled generation allowed, unless carbon capture and sequestration is proven and also used.

This won't replace the existing generation, most of which which will probably remain in the system for about 40 or more years unless we decide to retire it early.

The incremental cost of clean generation over carbon-laden generation is not that significant. The most costly elements required to meet the WE goals is the early retirement of functional existing generation. New clean generation facilities are significantly more expensive than the existing facilities, most of which have considerable life expectancy remaining. Retiring these facilities early forces society to not only incur the costs of the significantly more expensive clean generation facilities, but also the costs of retiring the capital expended to build the existing facilities before their useful lifetime is over. (and I expect consumers to bear most if not all of that cost)

If the timing of climate change provides the time, this additional cost, the cost of retiring existing facilities, might be avoidable, and meeting the WE goal not that critical.

Right now, especially with the worldwide economic downturn slowing the development of new carbon emitting facilities, I'd probably accept taking the time.

But that is a gamble, and I would only find it acceptable if there was clear progress on the new/replacement front.

Middle East

My wife, who is mostly non-political, asked me about the recent fighting in Hamas. She wanted to know what the people of Gaza had done to provoke Israel's response. She tends to see things in black and white. Israel's response is either right or wrong.

I tend to see things in shades of grey, and the middle east has got to be the murkiest grey around. In general, I like the phrase "nobody was wearing a white hat", and it certainly applies here.

I'm not a foreign policy expert or even very knowlegable about the middle east, but from my less than expert viewpoint, Israel's hat is darker right now. The damage and destruction they are causing is way out of proportion to the threat that Hamas imposed.

Furthermore, I think that in disputes like these, generally most terrorist threats, military action does more harm than good. It creates more terrorists than it discourages.

If Israel wants to reduce the threat of the terrorists, then it has to make terrorism look bad in the minds of the typical palestinian. Eliminate the sypathizers of terrorism, and it will gradually die out or be limited by the Palestinians themselves.

Israel need to take actions that improve the lives of the ordinary Palestinian, not impose further hardship and grief. Israel acts like an enemy of Palestinians, so it will continue to be seen that way. Their actions make the terrorists' actions more acceptable to the general population, and that makes it easier for the terrorists to operate and to recruit new terrorists.

Terrorism is a sign of despair and a lack of hope. It is the tool of those who believe there is no other option. Israel need to take actions that will give the Palestinians a reason to believe there are other options, there is hope for a better future.

General military action harms too many civilians, and creates even more sympathy for the terrorists.

This was the US mistake in the war on terrorism. It is not a typical war and should not be fought with typical war weapons. It needs a police-like response.

I hope Obama understands this and doesn't over-react in Afganistan.

a starting diatribe

It's new years eve and I thought one of the changes I'd make would be to start a blog, so this is my start.

I'm really looking forward to the new year, a new President, and hopefully lots of changes on the political front. The USA has gone backwards almost continually since President Kennedy was assassinated, and that's been most of my life. Johnson certyainly deserves credit for getting much of Kennedy's platform enacted, but he let Vietnam spoil its implementation. Too much money going to defense and not enough to what really mattered to Kennedy, and me. Carter stemmed the rightward tide for a while, but he wasn't really a liberal, and he was never able to really manage our government. (But he certainly has shown the world how to be a great an ex-president.)

Clinton probably did more damage to progressive causes than a republican would have, because he and his centrist accomplices legitimised the free market, privatization and deregulation crapola spouted by the right wing.

Regulation was imposed because the free market needs it. It wasn't imposed because some bureacrat wanted to build an empire. Elected officials imposed it to address real weaknesses that had become apparent from the operation of the marketplace. We've let the conservatives and the conservative owned media ignore this history and dictate the dialog.

Even growing up in conservative and Idaho, my teachers in the 1950s did not teach unbridled capitalism as the answer to all that ails us. Yet today, (or at least up until the latest market collapse), any Idaho teacher that implied a government based solution might be better than a market based one was jeopardizing their career, or at least risking a backlash.

Hopefully this will turn around in this new year.

Well, enough for now.