Congress has so far refused to set a mandatory national renewable electricity goal. Al Gore would like to make a suggestion - 100 percent:To meet his 10-year goal, Gore said nuclear energy output would continue at current levels while the nation dramatically increases its use of solar, wind, geothermal and so-called clean coal energy. Huge investments must also be made in technologies that reduce energy waste and link existing grids, he said.
If the nation fails to act, the cost of oil will continue to rise as fast-growing China and India increase demand, Gore said. Sustained addiction to oil also will place the nation at the mercy of oil-producing regimes, he said, and the globe would suffer irreparable harm.
One weird part of the article - the AP's Ron Fournier oddly references "ozone-killing" coal plants and never mentions carbon dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas pollutant. Does Fournier think ozone depletion is what causes global warming? Strange. Fournier was recently in the news when his sycophantic, pro-war, overtly-religious emails with Karl Rove were revealed.
As The Hill reports, Republican leaders are already responding to Gore's call for bold leadership by ... pandering on gas prices. Way to step up, guys. But who comes to Gore's defense? Virginia's own Rep. Rick Boucher, who says, “Those who oppose a climate control measure will make the argument that it should not be considered at a time of high energy prices, but that is a bogus argument.” Nice job, Rick!
Read an article about his takeover of the Washington Bureau here
This is not a new phenomenon; the wheel is merely turning full circle. Most American newspapers grew out of pamphleteering during the colonial period. By the middle of the nineteenth century, there were "Democratic" newspapers and "Whig" newspapers. Unbiased, balanced news reporting is very much a post-WWII creation, although the editorial pages have always maintained their political slant.
Just wanted to add some .02 cents here regarding diversification of resources. It is needed for several reasons: avoids price inflation, avoids resource scarcity, increases reliabililty.
As we get off of coal and oil, natural gas becomes of greater importance. Too much reliances on natural gas for baseline, may poise a danger to climate, as well as the 3 other reasons mentioned above. Natural gas emissions has much greater methane, which is more damaging to climate. At its current consumption, however, methane from natural gas emission does not pose a threat from what I have briefly read. However, this could change with dramatic increased usage.
But if natural gas becomes only the major player in peak capacity and back up generation for renewables as I suspect it will, this only only points the importance of nuclear as we turn away from coal and oil.
Climate, energy independence, energy security, and economic substainability. They are all interconnected and are all important to the clean energy revolution.