Rising fuel costs, climate change and the national security threats posed by U.S. dependence on foreign oil are conspiring to create "a new political environment" that Gore said will sustain bold and expensive steps to wean the nation off fossil fuels.
If you strike through "climate change" in the quote above, you might actually start to make some sense, especially in light of the increasing demands China and India are making on the world oil market. Alternate energy sources which aren't economically feasible with oil at $140 a barrel.
Still, I'd prefer we expand our native nuclear and hydroelectric power-generating capability concurrent with drilling for our own oil and natural gas resources, and also continue to develop solar and wind technology.
Bottom line, try EVERYTHING and let the free market sort out the best solution.
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.
Well, BHO almost does. O is still thinking that drilling now (or building nuclear plants) won't have any effect for ten years, but he has a plan - fund research into alternatives which he hopes result in something doable in a mere nine years, which is when it could begin to be implemented as long as no environment groups stall it another twenty in the courts...
Some outlets were reporting Gore supported clean coal, but the Times doesn't make mention of it, nor does the annotated prepared text.
Someone is playing games here with what Gore said.
And ignoring that problem, Gore really thinks that US energy needs could be met with wind, solar and geothermal while keeping nuclear at 20%? No mention of hydro power either.
Lunacy.
http://lawhawk.blogspot.com/2008...isses-
mark.html
Gore's manboobies contribute to global warming
It's actually a good idea. We have got to get off oil.
Commenting by HaloScan
