Gore Presents Bold Strategy for Fighting Climate Change
by Jeff McIntire-Strasburg, St. Louis, MO on 09.20.06
Commenting on politics and politicians is a tough game, as you're almost always going to draw fire from others about your motivations. In the case of Al Gore's speech on Monday at New York University's School of Law, we're happy to take that risk. After reading the speech (available at Gristmill), it's hard to believe that any American, regardless of party affiliation or ideological persuasion, could use words less than "bold" and "audacious" to describe the substance of his presentation. One might even be tempted to use the term "radical," but Gore's address on the challenges and opportunities presented by the climate crisis, as he calls it, steered clear of excesses and relied on ideas that are at once both visionary and very practical. Drawing on concepts promoted by Paul Hawken, Amory Lovins, L. Hunter Lovins, Lester Brown, the Apollo Alliance, and many other prominent thinkers, activists and organizations, Gore presented a compelling vision of the role the United States could play in leading the world to a more prosperous, healthier, and more sustainable future.
The former Vice President offered a multifaceted, systematic approach to the climate crisis that makes any kind of summary difficult, but several ideas will certainly spur more discussion, likely of the heated variety:
- An immediate freeze on our current level of carbon emissions: While he praised the Kyoto Treaty in the speech, and encouraged continued debate of it in the US, Gore's call to freeze carbon emissions at current levels, and then begin work to reduce them, goes well beyond any steps that Kyoto signatories have taken. He claimed that the time for "high-minded debates about theoretical future reductions" is over, and a cap on emissions at current levels "...has the virtue of being clear, simple, and easy to understand. It can attract support across partisan lines as a logical starting point for the more difficult work that lies ahead."
- The creation of a "Carbon Neutral Mortgage Association": To address the levels of CO2 emitted from buildings, and to encourage further development of zero-emissions structures, Gore suggested a new mortgage instrument that would "...eliminate any additional increase in the purchase price [of a carbon-neutral building] by capturing the future income from the expected savings."
- A revenue-neutral carbon tax: Perhaps the most politically courageous idea (which is easier since he's not currently running for office) was the implementation of a tax on carbon emissions, offset by the elimination of payroll taxes, to internalize the environmental and public health costs created by pollution. Gore noted that such a tax would have the effect of encouraging businesses to hire employees because of lower labor taxes while simultaneously discouraging activities that create emissions
Was the tax statement ordered "Cut income taxes and tax carbon" Or 'tax and cut'. Makes a world of difference to the pundit class.
It was the latter. You're right -- it will be interesting to see how this plays with the talking heads...
Can someone just go over what they just said. In simpleton terms.
Thanks
While I appreciate Gore's sentiment, and the worth of the ideas he's proposing, I had hoped to see some mention (any mention) of alternate forms of transportation, like bikes and mass transit. I understand that America is in love with the car, but I personally believe one of those uncomfortable sacrifices that needs to be made is the death of car-use as we know it. Sure, cars can be good, they provide some good services, but we don't need to have all these single drivers scurrying to and from work everyday. That just cannot continue sustainably. Regardless of what kind of fuel is in the tank, it's just plain inefficient and wasteful to have one car for one driver. That's the way our society operates right now, and it's failing badly. People who want to use mass transit in many places find it poorly-designed and would have to deal with ridiculous commute times (my fiance would have a 6 hour round trip commute in Austin to get to his work...30 minutes by car). That must change. Our culture must change, or all this will fail.
Kathleen, I might suggest that sustainable forms of transportation aren't going to fly with the general public if we refer to them as "alternative" or as requiring a "sacrifice". That just doesn't make for good PR :-)
Instead, how about talking about promoting a variety of transportation "options" and of having "healthy transportation" available for all? How about playing to the investor types by saying "diversify, diversify, diversify!" I also like to talk about "using the right tool for the job", noting that many of the current options for transportation (personal cars, large buses, uncovered two-wheeled bikes, etc.) aren't as effective or appripriate as other options may be (car-sharing clubs, mini-buses, enclosed pedal powered or electric trikes, scooters, walking, etc.). I also like to promote the exciting idea of "smart growth" which centers dense, mixed-use development around transit hubs, with more open space, and zoning opportunities for small farms and industry in the areas between the town and city centers.
Basically, there is a lot of great, fun, interesting, convenient, and pleasant stuff that we can do to reduce our dependence on non-sustainable energy. And it's far more effective to frame your message in a positive way than in a negative way if you want people to support your ideas.
Hopefully, this is what Gore is doing, and I encourage everyone else who wants to promote sustainable living to do so as well.
30 minutes by car is probably 1 hour by bike unless he spends his whole commute doing 70mph on the highway. I used to bike to work in downtown Chicago and a 30 minute drive would actually take 20 minutes by bike.
I understand biking is not for everybody (and certainly not for every city -- can we get some bike lanes in this COUNTRY or what?) but give it some thought. A brand new bike plus a helmet, lock, lights, rack, and panniers should be $500 or less and he'll never have to waste time on cardio machines at the gym again.
Ah, simpleton terms (Shadow7988)- I can try...
1) We stop increasing our CO2 output.(hold your breath) Actually, this is based on the idea that our economy keeps growing, and in growing we end up using more energy, so we expel more CO2. By keeping CO2 emissions the same Gore is challenging the economy of the US to grow, yet at the same time use less energy (or use it more efficiently).
2) Incentives for future buildings to be more environmentally sound. Gore is creating a policy here that would enable people to get money back for building green. One of the major contributors to CO2 emissions is from buildings!
3) Tax carbon instead of taxing payroll- Gore would like to tax carbon (hold breath again). Right now CO2 output is not recognized by many companies as a cost. By taxing carbon dioxide output this would make CO2 universally understood as having an associated cost, thus companies would have incentives to reduce emissions, and our economy would recognize the cost of carbon dioxide emission.
Gore presented some great ideas. The carbon tax shift is particularly compelling, since it allows carbon taxes to effectively subsidize a full-employment program (relative to current economics).
However, there's a fly in the ointment. If we tax domestic carbon emissions at their source (fuel retailers and major point-source users), we will drive what is left of American industry overseas in a heartbeat.
The only way I see around this would be to assess a carbon import tariff to balance the increased cost of domestic manufacturing. However, assessing this tariff in a fair and effective way is a terribly complicated proposition. How do we know how much carbon was released by a factory in China that's making our cell phones? The potential for political favoritism and system-gaming boggles the mind.
Anyway, it's not a reason to not do it. But it is a major hurdle to implementation that we should all give some thought to.
GreenEngineer, you bring up a good point that I had forgotten about. I was going to enthusiastically back Gore's plan until you mentioned this.
However, I think taxing CO2 and adding tolls to freeways is one of the best ways to reduce driving and/or increase efficiency of vehicles. It'll also make people think twice about their "affordable" house that is a long distance from work.
Also, his plan for making green houses have no more upfront expense than non-green ones is very good.
So Gore proposes replacing all taxes with a "carbon tax"? What happens when the evil taxpaying corporations wise up and use greener technology, and receipts from that tax drop below what can sustain the behemoth that is the US Federal Government? Governments have a tendency to become addicted to taxes (eg. cigarettes) and all kinds of strange things happen when the source of cash is threatened.
A more likely scenario is that Gore's carbon tax will end up as an new tax on corporations (that's probably all he had in mind in the first place) because other politicians will see the danger of losing revenue as things progress.
If that happens, things will progress as they always do when the gov't imposes greater tax burdens; businesses earn less, which in turn makes them less likely to make investments that will reduce their emissions, which will result in more taxes... In the end the economy becomes increasingly depressed and we all suffer.
Adding to the tax burden is & always has been the best way for politicians to look like they are doing something constructive, but their actions only cause more serious problems elsewhere.
Kathleen said:
"While I appreciate Gore's sentiment, and the worth of the ideas he's proposing, I had hoped to see some mention (any mention) of alternate forms of transportation, like bikes and mass transit."
Kathleen, Gore did make a fairly emphatic mention of the inefficient and polluting transport system. Here is the relevant text from the speech:
__________________
[...] many of the technologies on which we depend are actually so old that they are inherently far less efficient than newer technologies that we haven’t started using. One of the best examples is the internal combustion engine. When scientists calculate the energy content in BTUs of each gallon of gasoline used in a typical car, and then measure the amounts wasted in the car’s routine operation, they find that an incredible 90% of that energy is completely wasted. One engineer, Amory Lovins, has gone farther and calculated the amount of energy that is actually used to move the passenger (excluding the amount of energy used to move the several tons of metal surrounding the passenger) and has found that only 1% of the energy is actually used to move the person. This is more than an arcane calculation, or a parlor trick with arithmetic. These numbers actually illuminate the single biggest opportunity to make our economy more efficient and competitive while sharply reducing global warming pollution.
__________________
What happens when the evil taxpaying corporations wise up and use greener technology, and receipts from that tax drop below what can sustain the behemoth that is the US Federal Government?
Over the past 10 years, corporate tax receipts accounted for about 10% of federal tax receipts. From 1945-1965, that number was 26%.