digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at arstechnica.com

Al Gore's call for renewable energy sets us up for a useful

arstechnica.com — Al Gore's call for an electrical grid without carbon emissions can't be implemented in a decade, but that doesn't mean working on it is a waste of time.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • jmpeagle, on 07/21/2008, -5/+21i am assumming eh would also want cars to be electric. So the electrical grid would have to absorb all the fossil fuels going offline plus the addition of all the vehicles coming onto the grid. If we succeded, it would work wonders for our capital accounts balance, but there isn't enough political will or even voter support for these measures. Too many unions, corporations, and other special interests would get in the way.
    • Deathrah, on 07/22/2008, -0/+0He is grasping that very nettle- as us Australians are now fond of saying since Kevin 'Heavy' Rudd took the controls- of voter/consumer demand/support.

      ...so truly inspiring was his speech!!
      [stops to applaud Al "what an American" Gore...]
  • monoa, on 07/21/2008, -11/+8Now that scamerica has started pasting his debunked list multiple times in each thread (presumably in an attempt to 'hide' posts that debunk him?), can I suggest everyone starts reporting him for abuse as well as burying him. Removing his pointless, dishonest noise from Digg would be pleasant for all....
    • QuadZeroRoute, on 07/21/2008, -5/+4There is no user: scamerica, you are the spammer now.
      • monoa, on 07/22/2008, -2/+6Because the tool's account just got deleted, you idiot.
  • TheUngod, on 07/21/2008, -12/+16Gore has a great idea here, but nothing to back it up. There is no evidence or statistics or any logical reason he decided 10 years would be enough time to get the grid carbon neutral. I'm sorry but the man is a politician, not a scientist. He can claim to be an expert on global warming, but whether or not that's true, he's still no electrical engineer and apparently has little concept of how this all works. I've said it before, but leave the idealism for church. Science is based on reality.
    • ConceptJunkie, on 07/21/2008, -6/+10I actually agree with some of the things Gore calls for but his hyperbolic rhetoric, his misleading "statistics", his fear-mongering and his naked capitalization of this "crisis" for his own personal gain has done more to turn me off to his message than any merit the message itself to turn me on to what he wants to do.

      I agree with moving away from fossil fuels and I personally predict it will be 2050, not 2018 when this will be accomplished. If we are not prepared to do without significant alternatives before that date, we are screwed.
    • digitalhair, on 07/21/2008, -6/+6using your logic, Gregor Mendel was nothing more than a monk with a bizarre lifelong hobbie of playing God with plants.

      Thanks for deciding what the "evidence" is, what the "statistics" are, and what is "logical" and what is not. Your definition of a "Scientist" is especially helpful when thinking about who fits into your neatly defined set of labels and titles that are apparently bestowed by the Queen...

      I had no idea that Science could make progress toward solutions using skepticism alone!

      Who does Al Gore think he is, confidently moving forward with a call for Testing after forming a Hypothesis based on Observation, using a comprehensive data set derived using geologic time as a variable? Ayn Rand? *oops... I mean, a person who actually engages in applying the Scientific Method toward the pragmatic application of knowledge/understanding - an actual SCIENTIST?!?!*

      OH, no no no, we need to wait until the data set spans geologic time before testing any hypothesis! Surely, he is a depraved lunatic for not allowing garden-variety skepticism to immobilize his ability to use his political influence to implement something as useless as say, the INTERNET. How DARE he write the bill and appropriate tax dollars toward such an inherently wasteful endeavor? Individuals have no right to be so empowered, to have limitless access to information without being a member of America's aristocratic tradition, to be able aggregate data like a scientist before deriving Knowledge using common logic and critical thinking - to do all this without having a writ of approval from the Establishment funded by aristocrats with an inherent conflict of interest.
      • avengingturnip, on 07/21/2008, -4/+8Weird epistemological defect that reduces every issue to a science problem. Sorry, but economics and complex human behavior cannot be treated that way. It must be disappointing for you.

        Wow! I have an idea for science experiment. Let's force the entire world to change the way it generates electricity in ten years and see what happens!
      • digitalhair, on 07/21/2008, -1/+6generating the social and political support necessary for the successful implementation of such a change cannot be achieved by approaching the issue as if it's solely a scientific problem, which is why I'm critical of anyone who fails to perceive Gore's ability to implement his scientifically sound social and economic ideology while, at the same time, effectively playing the game of politics in such a way that he achieve its practical implementation.

        Thanks for making my point by showing how attempts to undermine Gore's credibility are based purely on politics and not the merit of the real Science behind his apparent resolve and rare sense of accountability regarding the issue.

        In other words, Gore wouldn't have to pretend to be such a politician if his detractors didn't make such inherently political attacks on him. Think about how effective the irrational talking points are: Al Gore and Global Warming are virtually synonymous in common dialog now.

        In essence, nobody knows how long it could take because it depends on our mutual acceptance and consensus on our ability to work together to meet any goal, but cynics like yourself seem to want it to fail so they can say "we told you so!" at the expense of any proactive resolve that might minimize potential problems created a lack of change - all of it, thanks to a petty political stalemate created be people protecting their wealth instead of honoring a reasonable call for innovation.
      • avengingturnip, on 07/22/2008, -2/+5What color is the sky in your world? Implement a scientifically sound social and economic policy? You might want to study history because, historically, when a few elitists have tried to do just that lots of people always end up getting killed. Not that you care. As long as it is scientific. I am such a cynic that I care more about people than about proving myself right at peoples' expense.
      • digitalhair, on 07/22/2008, -0/+1"You might want to study history because, historically, when a few elitists have tried to do just that lots of people always end up getting killed"

        let me ask you something...

        Given your concurrent understanding of the complexities associated with economics and complex human behavior - an understanding that compel's you to imply above that Al Gore's ambitious 10 year challenge is really an "elitist" social experiment which i assume is akin to the rampant propoganda-driven days of information manipulation employed by the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and Hirohito - don't you think you should step back and ask yourself who's side you're really on in this debate, especially if you care about the lives and expenses of others?

        The fact is, people are dying every day and Americans are paying far more for the increased cost of oil than they are paying toward unnecessary and unconstitutional taxation, and your lack of support for an expedited solution only buys the REAL elitists more time to use their oil wealth to make sure their greasy hands get wrapped around the next technology thatreplaces it.

        If you think it safe for anyone to threaten the wealth of these people, research the deaths of people working on creating limitless free energy devices (e.g. perpetual motion machines) on google and see why I believe you're mistrust of Gore's motivation is misplaced.
    • sk11, on 07/21/2008, -1/+9When people set a target, say, get lots done by the end of the week, if the resolve is there, then a lot can be done, even if not everything is completed. But if you set a long distant and lazy goal, like get something done in 5 years, the tendency is to do very little before it's too late. Procrastination is one of our worst enemies.

      If government had set mandates for car manufacturers to produce electric cars 10 years ago, up to a good percentage would be driving them today. The demand would go through the roof at today's oil prices. Let's make some noise.
    • vrbanabanana, on 07/22/2008, -3/+4I agree we need to move away from fossil fuels, but 10 years? What about airlines? Even if we had the technology to store enough electricity to fly an airliner, it would take at least 5-6 years before even a single airliner could be used to carry people. I'm not saying we shouldn't try, but lets be realistic here.

      Another thing to keep in mind is that when a lot of people start driving electric cars the price of oil will go down and the price of electricity will shoot up. Since it take forever to build power plants, we'll be in the exact same spot we are currently in only 10 years later. That's the nature of supply and demand.

    • toasty168, on 07/22/2008, -1/+7you can hide behind the need for numbers but whether or not the numbers are there, either way, it's a good thing and something we need as a global community on many levels.
    • Deathrah, on 07/22/2008, -1/+1I think you'll find such parallels with the space program: you obviously don't know much about how mankind advances in life!
  • benburned, on 07/21/2008, -1/+4I hope this means that Teslas will become part of the mass market.
  • Hrodrik, on 07/21/2008, -4/+17Only another shouted babyman submission could make it to top page without even having a complete title...
  • jonmlm, on 07/21/2008, -2/+21a useful what? oh well
    • XombieRobot, on 07/22/2008, -0/+5my thoughts exactly, not going to read the article now.
  • justananomaly, on 07/21/2008, -14/+6I still find it funny that the man who claimed to invent the internet, which from server to user ends is the most energy eating thing on the entire planet, somehow won a Nobel Prize for going "green" and "raising awareness" of global warning even though it's something that was a subject of controversy well before he ran against Bush.
    • jonmlm, on 07/21/2008, -2/+5i still find it funny that people perpetuate the myth about his "claiming to invent the internet".
      • justananomaly, on 07/21/2008, -8/+2Direct quote from Al Gore 9th of March 1999 on Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer:
        "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system."

        And while it was taken out of context, he still claimed to have played a key role on overseeing the development of technology we now know as the internet. If the claims are true, it Indirectly makes him a hypocrite to his own "i'm green now lul" bullcrap in my honest opinion.
      • FATEorFORTUNE, on 07/21/2008, -2/+2typical digger. can't think for himself, poor fellow. let him believe what he wants haha.
      • digitalhair, on 07/22/2008, -0/+4Here's the real story behind that fraud...

        I titled it specifically for justananomaly's apparent apathy for putting truth above political ego-porn.

        Learn precisely what Gore said in context with the political dialogue related to converting ARPAnet into what we now know as the internet:

        http://digg.com/politics/Stop_saying_Al_Gore_Inven ...
      • digitalhair, on 07/22/2008, -0/+4quoted 1988 news report text FTA:

        WALKER (12/30/1988): American computing scientists are campaigning for the creation of a “superhighway” which would revolutionise data transmission.

        Legislation has already been laid before Congress by Senator Albert Gore of Tennessee, calling for government funds to help establish the new network, which scientists say they can have working within five years, at a cost of Dollars 400 million.
  • palehorse864, on 07/21/2008, -1/+10Good, I've always wanted a useful. Was going to run out to the store to get a useful, but now Al picked one up for me.
  • abran1984, on 07/21/2008, -13/+17When Al starts changing his lifestyle, I'll change mine
    • FATEorFORTUNE, on 07/21/2008, -12/+11So I suppose you've been touring the country speaking about global climate change, doing research, and promoting awareness of it everyday for years now just like Al huh? *****, he's doing his part a thousand times over. If it wasn't for him, global warming would still be a non-issue. Grow a pair and do something.
      • BHO4Prez, on 07/22/2008, -5/+8global warming is still a non-issue.
      • bnorman, on 07/22/2008, -3/+10Yes, because flying around in a private jet and leaving your brigade of vehicles running for 20 minutes to keep the A/C running helps the environment so much.
      • czeman, on 07/22/2008, -6/+10Al Gore's "research" is useless, and he sure as ***** didn't deserve a Nobel Peach Price. Global warming has played a part in the Earth's climate since it was created. Hell, other planets are going through the same thing. Al Gore is nothing more than a goddamn hypocrite if he honestly believes the crap he's peddling. I wouldn't fault him so much for preaching ***** and telling us how to live greener, but he fails to do it himself. Living greener wouldn't be a bad thing, but he has no room to talk.
      • pashdown, on 07/22/2008, -1/+3Where is this Nobel Peach Prize and how can I get it? It sounds delicious.
      • chadszinow, on 07/22/2008, -2/+3hehe - "Nobel Peach Price"

        bnorman - Al carbon offsets all his transport.
        czeman - All climate scientist and Al know "Global warming" aka the Greenhouse Effect plays its part since the start. The point has always been that the climate change is occuring too quickly. With regard to other planets going through the same thing I'll leave that to http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/ ...
      • Deathrah, on 07/22/2008, -0/+0You are correct in saying abran1984 has an extremely weak position!

        The whinge is in... we are truly so soft these days if we argue with lines like that so I repeat, "abran1984: grow a pair, dood!"

        "Yeh, ya *****!"
      • smurfsahoy, on 07/22/2008, -0/+1Al Gore's house - his HOUSE, NOT his jet or his campaign costs or advertising, etc. - uses as much energy as 30+ American single family homes. What's the excuse for that? Does he personally need the rejuvenating powers of 30 families in order to withstand the grueling costs of getting paid a lot to make speeches?

        Fail.
  • batmanz, on 07/21/2008, -1/+8Sets us up for a useful...what? What is it?!?!??!
    • borez, on 07/21/2008, -6/+2Failure
      • borez, on 07/22/2008, -1/+1For those digging me down, that's actually the missing word you planks.
  • FATEorFORTUNE, on 07/21/2008, -2/+7thank god we're getting a useful!
  • sleepyjjk, on 07/21/2008, -8/+5Of course it would be useful - that's a no brainer.

    And for those who just want to debunk his "global warming myth - the greatest hoax ever" - just be quiet. Even if global warming isn't true, we will still need to find alternative sources of energy because fossil fuels will not last forever - and that is a fact.
    • dkapuchino, on 07/21/2008, -4/+3Would it be okay if we relied on nuclear energy instead?
      • czeman, on 07/22/2008, -1/+3Nuclear energy is perfectly safe if the power plant is constructed and maintained properly.
      • NuclearIsShit, on 07/22/2008, -1/+1No
      • zombies187, on 07/22/2008, -0/+1You want America to be more like France?
    • alecperkins, on 07/22/2008, -0/+2Why sleepyjjk is getting dugg down is beyond me. Energy independence is essential for our future. The ideas behind Gore's goal are getting lost in the climate change hoopla. A message of environmental change doesn't resonate with most people because the changes are not obvious and are (relatively) long term. What Gore should be emphasizing are the economic and political implications of sticking with this "game" as he calls it. Just look what is being done by T. Boone Pickens in Texas. The environmental message is taking a back seat to economics and security.

      I'm not saying the environment is unimportant. Quite the contrary, it's fundamentally most important. But, getting people to care requires something that really hits home to them. Gore should point to the economic problems and terrorism if he wants people to get motivated.
  • dkapuchino, on 07/21/2008, -15/+10Al gore couldn't invent the internet, so he invented global warming.
  • caramba420, on 07/21/2008, -4/+7Sure, it could be implemented in a decade. It's just a matter of people making sacrifices instead of being a bunch of pussies. Think of how much electricity could be saved almost immediately if people stopped using incandescent bulbs. But, as usual, nobody is going to act until the ***** hits the fan.
    • sturmgiest, on 07/22/2008, -0/+2Yes because everyone should buy mercury filled CFLs made in China.
    • PuterPrsn, on 07/22/2008, -0/+1Oh, sure. Fill up the landfills with poisonous mercury bulbs. That's rich!
    • caramba420, on 07/22/2008, -0/+0Hey guys guess what...mercury CFLs are not the only alternative to incandescents. Also, more mercury enters the environment due to oil drilling than fluorescent bulbs.

      Remember when I said, "But, as usual, nobody is going to act until the ***** hits the fan?"

      Thank you for proving my point for me. You people are so pathetic. Not only are you unable to take even the smallest of steps to pitch in, you get your panties twisted in a knot whenever someone else even mentions it. Way to be a part of the solution. Wonder why oil is $140 a barrel? It's because of you. Your willingness to joyfully waste the limited resources we have has driven demand through the roof. You're like the guy on the life raft that drinks more than his share of the water.
  • nastronomical, on 07/21/2008, -15/+5Scam Alert
  • lazerus9, on 07/21/2008, -13/+7How do you finish a sentence with the two diametrically opposed terms;--(Gore) and (useful)?
  • kalvinb, on 07/22/2008, -10/+5Now if only Obama could figure out that just because we won't see oil from off shore drilling for X years it doesn't mean we shouldn't start working on it now.

    Like it or not, oil is the short term solution to energy problems. Long term solutions like those proposed by Gore should be explored while we let oil companies do what they do best. Oil companies should be thought more of as energy companies. They know that oil is a finite resource with an unknown bottom. They have the most amount of capital to invest in new energy sources. And it's in their best interest to invest in those sources.

    It's not going to be long before people start driving all electric vehicals and if the oil companies want to not go the way of what created their product in the first place, they're going to need to get in on the business of producing electricity.
  • borez, on 07/22/2008, -11/+10Al Gore, isn't he that environmental stand up comedian.
  • SaladCactusKing, on 07/22/2008, -10/+9Buried For The End MrBabyMan Tyranny Movement.

  • nastronomical, on 07/22/2008, -10/+9The man is neither a scientist or an engineer. When they get up and speak about such issues without bias and with full evidence to support their theories then we should listen, until then this is just snake oil.
    • pashdown, on 07/22/2008, -1/+5If only FDR had been a scientist or an engineer, then maybe the Manhattan Project would have seen some fruit. If only Kennedy had been a scientist or an engineer, then maybe we would have made it to the moon.

      "There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?" - Robert Kennedy (not a scientist or an engineer)
  • badnewshotel, on 07/22/2008, -16/+15Buried because Al Gore is a hypocrite werido with an annoying voice.
    • SailingAlien, on 07/22/2008, -0/+0Well at least he doesn't look like Grizzly Adams anymore.
  • kalvinb, on 07/22/2008, -6/+3Obama should heed that advice and recognize that just because offshore drilling won't produce oil right away it will in the future and it's a guarenteed source of energy. Oil is the short term solution while potential long term solutions are developed.

    Oil companies are energy companies. They know their product has a finite supply. They also know the electric car isn't far off. So it's in their best interest to take the money they're earning from oil and invest it in new energy technologies. Which is what they're doing. They have more capital than anyone for doing it. Al Gore et al should be trying to work with them instead of fighting them.

  • Dred, on 07/22/2008, -1/+6Is he going to do like T. Boone Pickens and put his own money into it.
  • macweirdo42, on 07/22/2008, -4/+11Oh God, any minute we're gonna be hit by the "global warming is a hoax" crowd. Look, maybe the scientists are wrong, and that's a possibility I'm willing to consider, but do you really expect me to believe that there's a global conspiracy to falsify data or something? Are we moving to "all scientists are crooks and liars," and if so, why only on the subject of global warming?
    • evilbob333, on 07/22/2008, -3/+4Well the "consensus" is not as solid as everyone likes to proselytize and the solution for both global warming and now global climate change (cause cooling might and did happen) seems to be severe restrictions on the use of energy to the detriment of people's quality of life. And I am not just talking about Americans and Europeans. I am talking about third world countries who can't even get affordable energy to power things that we take for granted like refrigeration. Global warming has become a scientific theory that has become a political movement.
      • macweirdo42, on 07/22/2008, -1/+3Sure, the consensus isn't solid, and sure, the plans to stop global warming are ridiculous. However, it is a far leap from that to saying that global warming is a hoax. It implies that all research that supports the theory of global warming is fraudulent and that all scientists conducting that research are liars. Now I sure as heck won't disagree with you on the politicization of global warming, but again, it is one thing to say that politicians are exploiting the theory of global warming, and quite another to say that the theory itself is a complete sham.
    • maven1000, on 07/22/2008, -3/+1http://petitionproject.org/

      I can't believe I came to Digg under the assumption that this was a discerning informed discussion group. It is mob rule with anyone presenting a valid opposing viewpoint getting buried. Now where have I heard that before?

      Ok I am ready... bury me!!
      • macweirdo42, on 07/22/2008, -0/+2I'm rather shocked to hear that from someone who is apparently a global warming denier. Usually it's you guys who are opposed to any sort of rational discussion. I mean, I've always been on the fence about global warming, and so I would try to hear out both sides of the "debate." Over time, I found that it was a pointless endeavor, because anything I said that wasn't complete and total agreement with deniers would result in getting insulted and buried. No attempts to correct me, to point out why what I said was wrong... So eventually I gave up. Honestly though, I'm still on the fence about global warming, but I'm just so goddamn sick of the deniers that I don't even bother trying to hear them out anymore, because they never want to explain anything - they just want to hurl insults.

        I'm sorry for using the word "denier" and it may be unfair of me to lump you in with them, but I'm just frustrated with the whole thing.
    • Isidore, on 07/22/2008, -0/+4@evilbob333
      To me this looks like scientific consensus that humans are changing the climate:

      The National Scientific Academies of the following countries issued this statement:

      "It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken."

      National Academy of Sciences (US),
      Royal Society (United Kingdom),
      Chinese Academy of Sciences,
      Science Council of Japan,
      Russian Academy of Sciences,
      Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Brazil),
      Royal Society of Canada,
      Académie des Sciences (France),
      Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany),
      Indian National Science Academy,
      Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy),
      Australian Academy of Sciences,
      Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts,
      Caribbean Academy of Sciences,
      Indonesian Academy of Sciences,
      Royal Irish Academy,
      Academy of Sciences Malaysia,
      Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand,
      Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.

      2007 http://www.pik-potsdam.de/news-1/resolveuid/88fcf2 ...

      For other scientific organizations see:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on ...

      but maybe the armchair climatologists on Digg know better and prove it with ad hominem, sarcasm and irrevelancy....
  • justananomaly, on 07/22/2008, -5/+5Point being there are still around 3,500 others who probably deserved it WAY more then Gore did.
    • czeman, on 07/22/2008, -1/+1I think the number is higher than that. What is the world population at now?
  • lead2thehead, on 07/22/2008, -4/+5Wow... that's super serial.
  • GeorgeTirebiter, on 07/22/2008, -6/+1Maybe if Al hooked up with Heidi Cullen, the result would produce the solution for "man caused" global warming. It's getting kinda warm in here! Excuse me, I gotta fart. Sorry.
  • L0C0loco, on 07/22/2008, -1/+16Whoever says it cannot be done probably flunked history. The US industrial complex (primarily the automotive sector) during World War II was challenged by president Roosevelt to produce 45,000 tanks, 60,000 planes, 20,000 anti-aircraft guns, and 6,000,000 tons of shipping. In the three years from 1942 to 1944, they built 88,400 tanks, 229,600 planes and 34,000,000 tons of ships (I do not have production numbers handy for the other items). There is no reason to think that we could not produce a couple of million multi-megawatt wind generators (1 coal fired plant = 1000 Megawatt) in 10 years. All we have to do is want to do it. Given the plight of the automotive sector and its workers, doing this could actually be good for the country. I might even boost our exports and improve our standing in the world community.
    • nastronomical, on 07/22/2008, -2/+3Oh so what you are saying is that we can also start drilling in Offshore and in Alaska and bring oil to the market far sooner.........right?
      • pashdown, on 07/22/2008, -0/+3Bzzzt. More oil is not the answer, thanks for playing.
    • pashdown, on 07/22/2008, -0/+3Come on man! I know we have to fight the Japanese and the Germans, but give us a few decades to get it together!
    • 0biKwiet, on 07/22/2008, -0/+3As impressive as that is, this would be harder. And the only reason that we accomplished what we did in WWII, is that every single person personally wanted to produce those things as much as the guys calling the shots.
      • iamnotacrook, on 07/22/2008, -0/+29/11 should have been the impetus for the greenification of America. That would have been a much bigger middle finger to the terrorists than invading Iraq. But our leaders lost sight of the goal and went after Iraq's oil instead. And America didn't stay unified for long.

    • sturmgiest, on 07/22/2008, -0/+1Nuclear power would be 2-3 times as efficient as your bird killing wind generators. And we wouldnt need very many more reactors.
    • Gigs, on 07/22/2008, -0/+1They should use what you said in his next speech.
    • TJ11240, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1I do believe that also got our nation out of a depression..
  • johnnyfistfight, on 07/22/2008, -3/+4Al Gore's call for renewable energy sets us up for a useful....
    Tragically this digger of Global Onset Onanism Fever before he was able to complete his sentence.
    Please donate to G.O.O.F. so we can eradicate this global warming scourge before it's too late.
  • ayeroxor, on 07/22/2008, -3/+4MBM, I don't mind the good stuff you submit, but what kind of ***** title is "Al Gore's call for renewable energy sets us up for a useful"?

    You make it difficult to be on your side when you're just a lazy ***** slob.
  • jstancom, on 07/22/2008, -2/+0This is going to have to be done eventually. Just look at China. They are severely polluted and are developing at a rapid rate. There eventually will be a "conventional development peak" just as in biology when a species reaches "carrying capacity." Taking into consideration the environment will finally allow us to develop even further, removing the pollution and health risks of living in large cities.
  • Setter, on 07/22/2008, -3/+11Narrator: In A.D. 2008, the election cycle was beginning.
    Digg: What happen ?
    AlGore: Somebody set up us the useful.
    MrBabyMan: We get signal.
    Digg: What !
    MrBabyMan: Main page turn on.
    Digg: It's you !!
    ManBearPig: How are you gentlemen !!
    ManBearPig: All your generators are belong to us.
    ManBearPig: You are on the way to carbon neutrality.
    Digg: What you say !!
  • bootau, on 07/22/2008, -5/+3is this the same person who never helt a real job. al gore
    • Evilena, on 07/22/2008, -0/+4No. This the same Al Gore that used to be the Vice President.
  • grungegbunny, on 07/22/2008, -2/+2Al Gore's call for renewable energy sets us up for a useful
    Someone sent us up the bomb
    For great justice
  • thedo3, on 07/22/2008, -1/+2TheOrionProject.org is better if you ask me. They already have the technology and people needed to put a free energy device together in as little as 12 months. And all they are asking for is 3 million dollars, not billions.
  • radiofrequency, on 07/22/2008, -3/+7The electric car idea sucks. Right now with gas cars you can basically decide whether you want to drive or not and completely eliminate a particular source of energy from your bills. When everybody's overloading the electrical grid charging up electric cars prices on electricity will go up across the board and there will be no way for you to avoid the electricity monopoly unless you give up household lighting, computing, refrigeration, etc. Democraps are just great at jacking up prices and taxes to regular Americans but they can't balance the budget, discipline their spending, or come up with an idea worth a damn.

    Why are gas prices so high? They refuse to drill for oil. They put the refining process under additional strains by forcing 50 states to use 40 different formulations for gasoline ... all in the guise of "environmental protection". How 40 different strains of gasoline for cars help the environment is beyond explanation. And when these dim bulbs added MBTE to gas in California, they didn't even bother doing a study on what the pollution hazards of that were. The MBTE additive actually increased consumption of gasoline because it made it less efficient.

    Democrats = insanity.
    • chadszinow, on 07/22/2008, -1/+2Sorry to be short on citable facts here but I watched a doco recently which explored alternative fuels including electric and the consensus with the power company was if the bulk of people recharge their cars at night then the current US electric infrastructure can handle it.

      Point taken about the convenience loss in refueling. No one can argue with that.

      Regarding why oil is so high you should like at what these guys have to say about more drilling and what capacity the oil refineries are running at http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Index.html. They draw their own conclusions but there are plenty of cited facts about drilling and production which disagree with what you say.
    • jaxcs, on 07/22/2008, -0/+2You rail against electric cars and dems but the only solution you have is to drill for more oil? How do you respond to the many people think we are at or near peak oil? Who exactly is the dreamer here, dems who want to invest in renewables or reps who think there is an ocean of oil off the coast of New York?

      Let's give you your fantasy and say there is 5 years worth of oil off the shores of Los Angeles. "Five years is five years of oil", you shout, "drill away!", but that amount is gone in the blink of an eye. The dream of renewable isn't just carbon neutrality, it's energy independence. We can finally stop having middle east misadventures. Your cries of democraps is just head in the sand partisan blindness.


    • piratearggghhh, on 07/22/2008, -0/+1It's that mentality that leaves us further behind technologically. While we're busy trying to think of new ways to drill for oil and saying we can't do this or we can't do that, Japanese and European companies have vowed to increase R&D in green technologies that will give them an economic advantage in the long run. They're already reaping the benefits with the Prius, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. This shouldn't even be a democrat/republican issue.
  • OC73, on 07/22/2008, -7/+7I'm so glad this putz never became president.
    • Schmich, on 07/22/2008, -4/+5Yeh because having $ spent inside the US would have been much worse than how it's spent overseas? I'll even go as far as to say on behalf of the world that Al Gore would have been a much much wiser choice over Bush. Why do we care about another countrie's president? Because the US president has a major influence all over the world, unfortunately.
    • digitalhair, on 07/22/2008, -3/+2Are you George W Bush in disquise?!?!? what an honor sir, that you would take the time to participate in the patriotic exchange of ideas instead of destroying it.

      now, if you'll excuse me, I have to call my family to make sure they're okay. Oh, well when did she call? why do I always have to pick up the milk on the way home? uh huh? god I hate those canvas bags, i'll just have to conveniently forg... she said it twice? damn.
    • jaxcs, on 07/22/2008, -1/+4Because you like the putz that is making us pay 5 dollars per gallon of gas?
  • sonofagun357, on 07/22/2008, -5/+4Al Gore needs to stop telling people what to do and start doing himself (teach by example not by speach Mr Gore)
    • Deathrah, on 07/22/2008, -0/+0Al Gore doesn't need to do *****, *****!
      =X^o'////
    • Deathrah, on 07/22/2008, -0/+0Al Gore doesn't need to do *****, *****!

      =X^o'////
  • nathanww, on 07/22/2008, -2/+2buried because it's MrbabyMan.

    VIVA LA REVOLUCION!!!
  • worldtechguy, on 07/22/2008, -1/+2http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/proved_no_ ... That's all that needs to be said....
  • mwrl, on 07/22/2008, -3/+2Has he found ManBearPig yet? No one takes him Cereal! Excelthior!
    • Deathrah, on 07/22/2008, -0/+0Do you know what Project Excelsior was?!?

      Look it up on Youtube, dood!
  • nextbgates95, on 07/22/2008, -2/+3I love how Al Gore says something and it is instant truth. No questions asked.

    -Mr. Logic
    • KidDynamo0, on 07/22/2008, -0/+2So he says that he thinks we can get there in 10 years. How is that instant truth? I get that you may not like Al Gore but give it a rest with just making up a ***** argument against his suggestion. I guess Kennedy saying that we can make it to the moon was on the same level of "instant truth"
  • philipl411, on 07/22/2008, -0/+1right now there is 384 ppm of co2 in the air. I am curious, what is the tipping point? 400 ppm? 500ppm? ARe we past it already?
    • Deathrah, on 07/22/2008, -0/+0 Ausra's David Mills is on Youtube as saying the 440ppm target is already unachievable: but he was probably looking at conceivable rates of takeup that don't take into account such initiatives as this one...?!?

      That exact question is looking to shape up to be a very interesting debate indeed!

      Noice, poignant, question!
      • wunksta, on 07/22/2008, -0/+0does that factor in the NO2 and methane equivalents of CO2?
  • JohnDBandit, on 07/22/2008, -2/+2With 117 comments on the thread, its probably already been said. Al "Slayer of Manbearpig" Gore is a two-faced douchbag tool with ulterior motives.
  • QubitTarutaru, on 07/22/2008, -2/+3I'd listen if it wasn't Al Gore... Then again, I don't know of any politician I would believe...
  • zosoIV, on 07/22/2008, -0/+2Someone set up us the useful.
  • liph17, on 07/22/2008, -1/+1This is an interesting article.

    I think it is important for individuals to take more responsibility of our earth. I found a neat website that stops postal junk mail helps the environment at the same time. Check it out: www.simplestop.net
  • landmonster, on 07/22/2008, -3/+2Gore is a stupid *****, a puppet of the eco-industry whose job it is to scare us into believing we're doomed unless we live 'greener' lives. Get *****, fat *****.
    • wunksta, on 07/22/2008, -0/+0yeah and i suppose depending on foreign sources of energy that are controlled by religious fanatics is something we should consider a good thing?
      • landmonster, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1We should consider killing you and burning your corpse.
  • o5rob5o, on 07/22/2008, -0/+0I wanna ride Al Gore into the future....
    errrr ummm i didnt say that
  • PuterPrsn, on 07/22/2008, -0/+1How about him taking a giant step in that direction before he starts on the rest of us? His electric bill at home for a month tops mine for a year. For a two-person family, that mansion is a testament to underutilization and waste. Not a solar panel, heat pump, or wide veranda in sight. What a hypocrite!
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 57 of 57 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.