Gore in San Jose speech: Climate change deserves same attention bailout is getting

[Newsjock]

Source: San Jose Mercury News

Al Gore said in San Jose on Saturday that the climate crisis deserves the same type of attention and money from Washington that the financial meltdown is getting.

"Instead of a focus only on a bailout, we need to bail in renewable energy," Gore said during a 50-minute speech at the Civic Auditorium.

... Indeed, the speech had something of a rock concert feel. Loud music played before the event started. Many in the casually dressed crowd of about 2,000 took cell-phone photos once Gore walked onto the stage. And his comments about the dangers of climate change, its impact on the world, and how it might be solved, sounded like Gore's greatest hits.

He traced the current crisis with the financial markets to the subprime mortgage mess. There's also a "subprime carbon" mess that's shaking the world's economy, he said, one that puts 70 million tons of carbon dioxide into the air each day. And companies that deny it's harmful are engaging in "a form of stock fraud," he said.

Plans to seek oil from Canadian oil shale and tar sands are "utter and complete madness, complete insanity," he said. And new coal plants should be banned in the United States, he said.

Read more: http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_10577439

[Lorien]

1. Paging TheGoldenRule:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4110328&mesg_id=4110328

[sagetea]

5. We must be on the same thought wave, Lorien!

You beat me to it first both times!!
edit: re type..looked stupid!!

[earth mom]

13. Hey thanks for calling!

:hi:

I honestly did not see this before now. My thread was inspired this morning by this thread which asked the question,

"Ok WHAT NOW? Most are against this bailout"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4108033

[Dover]

2. Yes! If government nationalized renewable energy projects then we wouldn't need T. BOONE!

Lets put 700+ billion where it really will bring a return...of our investment, of jobs, of our future and of the earth.

[harmonicon]

3. blah blah blah

If Gore really wanted to get things done, he would have run for president this time around, and won in a landslide. While I don't dislike Obama, I don't think he'd do 1/2 as good a job as Gore. I just want the bastard to do the job we elected him to do 8 years ago, but he refuses.

[bitchkitty]

16. I'm sure that Gore would appreciate you calling him a bastard.

Like he had any choices in the matter. Talk about blame the victim!

[harmonicon]

17. He couldn't choose to run for president this time?

I wrote to him many times, as did .... hundreds of thousands? Millions? of others.... I voted for him in 2000, along with the majority of the electorate, and I want him to serve his country, like we asked him to.

[Pastiche423]

18. Uh, in case you din't know

Al has been a wee bit busy trying to get too many ignorant people in this country to f'ing wake up to what is happening to Mother Earth and to us.

W/that said, I too wanted Al Gore to run this time. I was a member of every Al Gore for '08 site out there. Hell, he even made it into my dreams.

When I realized that he was not going to run, I finally understood that he made the best decision for all of us. He has now dedicated his life to Climate Change and to solutions to the monstrous event we find ourselves in the midst of. Who else is there to lead the charge?

(Another) w/that said, I'd vote for him in a New York minute!

I :loveya: Al Gore!

[harmonicon]

19. I just don't think he can really change things in his current position.

He can try to inspire others to do what needs to be done, but as president, he could really take initiative and accomplish his goals. I can understand why he wouldn't want to be president, but for the good of the planet, I think he should have at least ran. On a personal note, I actually feel a bit betrayed by him now - he was our president. What did my vote for him mean?

[livelongandprosper]

20. He would have lost. And this time around really lost.

Let's face is Americans are too lazy and too rigid to admit that Gore is right.
If there's one area where they really don't want change is their garage.

[superkia]

22. Gore is too busy trying to sell a carbon tax on the world, while...

thousands of scientists that have not been bought or pressured are still giving opposing views on the effects of man made global warming. I know, I know, they say it will go to the corporations and not us but for those of us that actually think, we understand that the corporations will just pass their cost increases onto us like they always do.

I am not saying we shouldn't be cautious and knowledgeable of what we do to the environment, I am only saying that accepting the controlled media and corrupt gooberments word on something because they keep repeating it over and over and over is really not a good idea...we should have learned our lesson by now! Once some people buy into the bullshit, they get out their and spread the bullshit even further and it effects all of us. As DK said...WAKE UP AMERICA!

People need to stop following politicians like they are their idols and think for themselves. Look at everyone's golden boy Clinton and all of the disastrous things he did to our country while in office but he was cool and smooth so its ok?

[FarCenter]

4. Climate change is a lost cause

The only way out is to reduce our foreign expenditures for oil, and therefore, in the short run, we need more coal-fired plants and more gas and oil production domestically.

There is nothing else that will come on line quickly enough.

Yes, I've looked at the ethnaol plants in South Dakota and I've looked at the Siemens wind turbines being imported through Duluth. They will not produce enough energy to make a real dent in our annual consumption of more than 100 Quads.

Nuclear would, but that takes to long. So domestic fossil fuel is the only answer for now.

[2Design]

7. wrong board ? n/t

[roody]

8. How about turn off some lights and walk or bike?

[FarCenter]

9. I'm all for that

In fact, I'd turn off all outdoor, street and highway lighting except in places where it is actually needed. If you look at a major metro area from an airplane, the waste is obvious.

[LeftyMom]

11. Drugs are bad, m'kay?

[Nihil]

25. You'd better hope that it isn't a "lost cause"

> we need more coal-fired plants and more gas and oil production domestically

FOAD but please STFU first so that you only kill yourself, not dragging
everyone sentient along with you.

:grr:

[MasonJar]

6. I totally disagree with you. We do NOT need more coal plants or

domestic oil drilling. We need to conserve, limit our % of using up the world's resources and, most importantly, start now with financial support of sun, wind and water energy.

[FarCenter]

10. Conservation is good, but it is not enough

sun,

Best in the desert southwest and OK in the south. For heating in the north at night, not so practical.

wind

most wind generators are the roughly 2 Megawatt types. They go up to 5, but those are the taller ones that people complain most about. A typical power station is 1000 Megawatts. So you need to put up about 200 to 500 wind turbines to equal one power station.

Also, good in the tall-grass prarie states and off-shore in the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. Wind tends to be variable and die down at night. Therefore, you need to invest in other generation to prevent brown-outs.

and water energy.

More dams are vehemently opposed on ecological grounds. Tide power is probably also an ecological issue, and it is unproven.

[Lorien]

15. Amen. The sooner we get on the path to TRUE energy independence

the better chance we have of ensuring our survival as a species for a few more generations.

[0rganism]

12. disagree with Gore on the "complete insanity" of oil shale & tar sand extraction

Maybe it's insane from a greenhouse gas emissions viewpoint, but completely inevitable from an economic one. The sad truth is nations aren't re-tooling fast enough to avoid peak oil production's economic effects. Oil shale and tar sand extraction processes don't happen so much now because they cost more than refining available crude we can suck out of the ground. When that crude supply falters, or the refineries under-perform for whatever reason (natural disasters, e.g.), demand will exceed supply and suddenly costlier extraction processes become lucrative.

We failed to adjust. We will pay the price, one way or another.

[Lorien]

14. One price involves cash, the other most of life on earth-incluing ours

so, which is more valuable to us as a species? Survival, or short term cash savings?

[0rganism]

23. depends on who you ask

You or me, we'd probably pick species survival.

Others? Apparently not so much.

[livelongandprosper]

21. "Maybe it's insane from a greenhouse gas emissions viewpoint"

Well that pretty much makes it insane as is.

[Pterodactyl]

24. Not such a good idea, considering how the bailout is foundering.