Gore’s 5 step plan for bankruptcy Posted by: McQ
on Sunday, November 09, 2008
He sees an opening and he's bound and determined to push his agenda. Damn bankruptcy, full speed ahead!
That opening, of course, is a Democrat in the Oval Office with a Democratic legislature to rubber stamp Al's initiative. So Al begins the propaganda campaign with an op-ed in the NYT:
The world authority on the climate crisis, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, after 20 years of detailed study and four unanimous reports, now says that the evidence is “unequivocal.” To those who are still tempted to dismiss the increasingly urgent alarms from scientists around the world, ignore the melting of the north polar ice cap and all of the other apocalyptic warnings from the planet itself, and who roll their eyes at the very mention of this existential threat to the future of the human species, please wake up. Our children and grandchildren need you to hear and recognize the truth of our situation, before it is too late.
Yeah - well here's your "unanimous", Al (but note he seems to have dropped "consensus" from the vocab). And yes, my eyes are still rolling.
However what got me to laughing, in a mirthless way, was this paragraph:
Here is the good news: the bold steps that are needed to solve the climate crisis are exactly the same steps that ought to be taken in order to solve the economic crisis and the energy security crisis.
Bet you didn't know that, did you? Say Al, what are those "bold steps" you speak of?
Economists across the spectrum — including Martin Feldstein and Lawrence Summers — agree that large and rapid investments in a jobs-intensive infrastructure initiative is the best way to revive our economy in a quick and sustainable way. Many also agree that our economy will fall behind if we continue spending hundreds of billions of dollars on foreign oil every year. Moreover, national security experts in both parties agree that we face a dangerous strategic vulnerability if the world suddenly loses access to Middle Eastern oil.
Uh, anyone want to guess who he's talking about paying for the "investment" and what "infrastructure initiative" he and the boyz are sure will "revive our economy"? Hmmm?
Let's just say the market doesn't have much of a roll, and leave it at that, OK?
And by the way, for you coal folks who voted for the crew who said they'd most likely bankrupt any new coal fired enterprises, Al's not your friend either:
Some have come up with even dirtier and more expensive new ways to extract the same old fuels, like coal liquids, oil shale, tar sands and “clean coal” technology.
But in every case, the resources in question are much too expensive or polluting, or, in the case of “clean coal,” too imaginary to make a difference in protecting either our national security or the global climate. Indeed, those who spend hundreds of millions promoting “clean coal” technology consistently omit the fact that there is little investment and not a single large-scale demonstration project in the United States for capturing and safely burying all of this pollution. If the coal industry can make good on this promise, then I’m all for it. But until that day comes, we simply cannot any longer base the strategy for human survival on a cynical and self-interested illusion.
Oh, and for those of you keeping score, note that Al never said a word, not one word, about nuclear energy.
No, he's going to revive our economy with taxpayers money invested in "green collar jobs" chasing vaporware.
Yup, that ought to do it.
Anyway, Al's 5 step, economist sanctioned plan to save the world and America's economy?
Easy stuff. Step one:
First, the new president and the new Congress should offer large-scale investment in incentives for the construction of concentrated solar thermal plants in the Southwestern deserts, wind farms in the corridor stretching from Texas to the Dakotas and advanced plants in geothermal hot spots that could produce large amounts of electricity.
Obviously Al has bought off the environmentalists in both areas so when the carpet the desert with solar panels and erect of forest of wind farms we won't hear any of that annoying screeching about destroying eco-systems and all, right?
And the cost? Eh, who cares. We don't have the money anyway. Go in debt? Not the Democrats, come on.
Second, we should begin the planning and construction of a unified national smart grid for the transport of renewable electricity from the rural places where it is mostly generated to the cities where it is mostly used. New high-voltage, low-loss underground lines can be designed with “smart” features that provide consumers with sophisticated information and easy-to-use tools for conserving electricity, eliminating inefficiency and reducing their energy bills. The cost of this modern grid — $400 billion over 10 years — pales in comparison with the annual loss to American business of $120 billion due to the cascading failures that are endemic to our current balkanized and antiquated electricity lines.
But wait, we have this 135 Gigawatt demand and after ruling out coal plants, have nothing whatsoever to replace the 57 gigs they were supposed to pick up. So what good is a "smart grid" without adequate power to be transported?
Small detail, I'm sure, but when reading by candlelight you really don't care what kind of a grid is supposed to be transporting your power if you don't have adequate power.
Third, we should help America’s automobile industry (not only the Big Three but the innovative new startup companies as well) to convert quickly to plug-in hybrids that can run on the renewable electricity that will be available as the rest of this plan matures. In combination with the unified grid, a nationwide fleet of plug-in hybrids would also help to solve the problem of electricity storage. Think about it: with this sort of grid, cars could be charged during off-peak energy-use hours; during peak hours, when fewer cars are on the road, they could contribute their electricity back into the national grid.
Don't you love the phrase "we should help" when uttered by Al Gore? That means you should help by "investing" more of your "patriotic taxes" into what Al finds important. Payback - well your horribly expensive electric car could "give back" some of its power when needed. Wooo Hooo!
Fourth, we should embark on a nationwide effort to retrofit buildings with better insulation and energy-efficient windows and lighting. Approximately 40 percent of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States come from buildings — and stopping that pollution saves money for homeowners and businesses. This initiative should be coupled with the proposal in Congress to help Americans who are burdened by mortgages that exceed the value of their homes.
Uh oh, another "we should". Keep that 40% number in mind. It'll become important in the next one. In the meantime don't forget to keep your tires inflated to spec as well.
And I have to tell you I love Al's creativity with this particular one - did you notice how he hinted that the Congress ought to sneak this into spending legislation aimed at "Americans who are burdened by mortgages that exceed the value of their homes"? Just a little goodie to add to the burden.
Step five and the one you've been waiting for:
Fifth, the United States should lead the way by putting a price on carbon here at home, and by leading the world’s efforts to replace the Kyoto treaty next year in Copenhagen with a more effective treaty that caps global carbon dioxide emissions and encourages nations to invest together in efficient ways to reduce global warming pollution quickly, including by sharply reducing deforestation.
Yes, that cap and trade program Europe has has been a real winner, Al. Remember the 40% figure I told you to keep in mind above? Listen carefully to this, especially around 30 seconds. Key part - "100%". That means no exemptions:
Yes folks, it's Al Gore's wet dream come to life. And what will it do?
Looking ahead, I have great hope that we will have the courage to embrace the changes necessary to save our economy, our planet and ultimately ourselves.
Sorry Al. That wouldn't take 'courage'. It would take a death wish as it would be an act of economic suicide. There's a reason I consider Gore the most dangerous man alive.
You know, virtually everything that comes out of Al Gore’s mouth is almost immediately discredited by reputable scientists. I agree, he is extremely dangerous to the USA. Hell, he’s dangerous to the whole world!
Just a cursory search of climate change on the Internet will lead you to scientific journals saying this is NOT a man-made issue. Yet now Gore and his followers are so willing to completely ignore simple facts, like that electric shortfall you mentioned, and enact legislation guaranteed to destroy our economy.
" Approximately 40 percent of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States come from buildings"
Probably from the occupants breathing, which is easy enough to solve.
"And if you dare speak out then this is what will happen."
His first words, conveniently taped;
"I’m not trying to cause any trouble."
BS. He, along with his cameraman, was trying to provoke a reaction. Just as nobody has the right to yell ’fire’ in a crowded theater, nobody has the right to provoke a riot. The police were entirely justified in removing him from the scene, particularly after he refused to do so by himself.
The full video is more interesting.
"We have a new President elect, or should I say select, by the New World Order..." at about 0:15 into the video. "Obama is a puppet of Wall St. and the New World Order." at about 6:19 in the video.
Obviously Marine One now qualifies as a black helicopter.
We must constantly challenge the premise that carbon dioxide is pollution. We just can’t let him get away with it without throwing it back into his face and making him look like a AGW hack. Words are powerful things. People latch onto them. There are some people at work (and I’m sure you heard it, too) about people voting for "change" in this election but they had no idea what they really means. No one’s for pollution. The same people who voted for "change" are the same ones that are going to quietly let our representatives regulate CO2...er, "pollution."
And the interesting thing about this is...for wind power we assume that the corridor in the present environment will continue. For our solar sources we presume the ’deserts’ and the Southwest will continue to have the weather they currently have.
So, we’re changing the face of the planet ladies and gentlemen! We’re changing the weather! We must do something! But it seems we’re not changing the environments from which we will derive our weather related domestic energy sources.
So if the wind corrider fails to yield sufficent wind after we’ve filled it with turbines (remember the weather is changing! the environment is changing!) And if the Southwest suddenly isn’t quite as sunny? NO! won’t happen...shut up Looker the stuff we NEED to keep the same will stay the same (while the oceans rise all around the world, and the sky fills with gas that retains heat, all around the world).
How nice. How convenient. Once again, no science, no reality. Fuzzy, feel good, and destined to make someone some money and give them control of the rest of us.
Hello, Major developments in Clean Coal Power Initiative in the last decade have made it increasingly attractive as an alternative energy source. Clean Coal Power Initiative now offers more electricity per unit of coal, less solid wastes per unit of electricity, lower carbon dioxide emissions per unit of electricity and less thermal pollution per unit of electricity.