<<July
20, 2008>>
Archived distributions can be retrieved at;
<http://preview.tinyurl.com/35zedj>
This archive includes a html version of this list distribution and its MS/WORD
version with its filename as Òmonth-date-year.doc.Ó You can also access
all of its attachments, if any.
Marc A. Levy <mlevy@ciesin.columbia.edu>
Hans Rudolf Herren, Ph.D. <hh@millennium-institute.org>
Weishuang (WS) Qu, Dr. <wq@millennium-institute.org>
Dr. Harold P. Sjursen <hsjursen@duke.poly.edu>
Sunil Kumar, Ph.D. <skumar@poly.edu>
Carl Skelton <cskelton@poly.edu>
Akira Onishi, Prof. Dr. <onishi@cgmfost.org>
Tatiana Novikova, Ph.D., Dr. Sci. <tsnovikova@mail.ru>
Dr. Dorien J. DeTombe <DorienDeTombe@hotmail.com>
Reference:
(a) (06/18/08) Get
acquaint meeting for creating Global Network of Center for Conflict Management
and Resolution (GNCCMR)
http://tinyurl.com/3nrxrs
(b) Takeshi Utsumi, GLOSAS/USA
"Globally Collaborative Environmental Peace Gaming (GCEPG)"
http://tinyurl.com/k2c7a
(c) Quantitative Policy Analysis of Global Socio-Economic-Energy-Environment
Development (GSEEED) Project
http://tinyurl.com/337nrn
Dear Marc, WS, Harold and Carl:
(1) I greatly appreciated that the mini-workshop at Columbia University on
July15th (Reference (a) above) was very successful and fruitful.
Attendees were as follows;
From left: Marc Levy, Weishuang (WS) Qu, Harold P. Sjursen, Carl Skelton
Photo taken by T. Utsumi
Dear
E-Colleagues:
The mtg minutes and the brief summary of the actions to be taken for the
GCEPG/GSEEED projects are now being constructed, and will be disseminated to
you soon.
Dear GCEPG/GSEEED Project members:
(2) ATTACHMENT I, II, III and IV below are about Former Vice President Al GoreÕs
following recent speech;
ÒEMBARGOED –
For DeliveryÓ
July 17, 2008
A Generational Challenge to Repower America (as prepared)
D.A.R. Constitution Hall
Washington, D.C.
<http://tinyurl.com/5kwjt9>
(3) Albeit controversial, his
bold vision provides us with an excellent opportunity to demonstrate our
GCEPG/GSEEED project to test its viability and effect to the world economy in
various countries.
In a sense to me,
this may be a continuation of a large scale session on energy simulation at the
Summer Computer Simulation Conference (SCSC) in Houston, TX in the summer of
1974, which I presided — BTW, the SCSC was created and named by me as the
Program Chairman in 1970 in Denver and as the General Chairman in 1971 in
Boston. This energy session was in response to the first oil chock at
that time and the first of its kind in worldwide, and gathered many prominent
specialists, researchers and scholars from around the world. Another note
is that Iranian scientists indicated at the session their need of nuclear power
plant because there would be no natural resources to support their economy
after depleting their oil reserves, and Iranians are proud people not being
beggar as in many of developing countries. Everybody at the conference
understood their appeal, were sympathetic and agreed with the Iranians.
Subsequently,
I would suggest that you would start contemplating this direction, which is to
be formulated into our action plan. Anyway, Hans and WS group already has
global energy simulation system,as well as the US economy model and Prof.
Onishi also has world economy model of almost 130 countries combined together
(*), so that we are well prepared to tackle this Al GoreÕs initiative and
vision.
(*) which has already
demonstrated at our first ÒGlobal Lecture Hall (GLH)Ó multipoint, multimedia,
interactive videoconference held in the summer of 1986 — see at the end
of "Interview with Takeshi Utsumi" by Parker Rossman (September 17, 2004) <http://tinyurl.com/fnxxt>. This was held on the US/Japan trade issues in response to the
Second Oil Shock. There were prominent American and Japanese economists
who were connected via inexpensive telecom media for three day sessions.
Dear Prof. Onishi:
Sorry we could not provide you
with your travel fund to attend the mtg, because the Japan Foundation exhausted
their discretionary fund of this fiscal year.
(4) If the viability of Al GoreÕs bold vision is proved with our GCEPG/GSEEED
project — even for replacing only 50% of the all electricity needs in the
US with renewable energy sources — it would be a tremendous social
change.
If so, Japan should follow his vision definitely, since almost 100% of oil and
natural gas has been imported. This may then also be emulated in China
and India, etc., too.
This will then make substantial CHANGE OF THE WORLD, as revamping, overhauling
entire energy, economy and social system in those countries.
Hence, our GCEPG/GSEEED project would be very challenging and exciting,
indeed!!!
Best, Tak
ATTACHMENT I
Energy
crisis threatens U.S. survival, Gore says
CNN.com, July 18, 2008
<http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/17/gore.energy/index.html>
Story Highlights
Renewable energy can bring equivalent of $1 a gallon gas, Gore says
Al Gore calls for electrical grid to be off carbon-based energy in 10 years
Gore has pushed for policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
Former vice president won Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for advocacy
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United
States should be making all of its electricity with renewable and carbon-free
energy in 10 years, former Vice President Al Gore said Thursday.
"The survival of the United States of America as we know it is at
risk," Gore said.
In a speech at Washington's Constitution Hall, Gore touched on an array of the
nation's current woes, saying the economic, environmental and national security
crises are all related.
"I don't remember a time in our country when so many things seemed to be
going so wrong simultaneously," Gore said.
To begin to fix all the problems, Gore said, "the answer is to end our
reliance on carbon-based fuels." Watch more on Gore's answer to energy crisis È
Gore called on the country to produce
all of its electricity from renewable and carbon-free sources in 10 years, a
goal he compared to President Kennedy's challenge for the country to put a man
on the moon in the 1960s.
Gore chastised those who have proposed opening new areas for oil drilling as a
solution to U.S. energy problems.
"It is only a truly dysfunctional system that would buy into the perverse
logic that the short-term answer to high gasoline prices is drilling for more
oil 10 years from now," Gore said. Watch panelists discuss Gore's speech È
New demand from places like China means
oil supplies won't be able to meet increasing demand, Gore said.
"The way to bring gas prices down is to end our dependence on oil and use
the renewable sources that can give us the equivalent of $1 a gallon
gasoline," the former vice president and Nobel laureate said. Read Gore's full speech
After losing the presidential election to then-Texas Gov. George Bush in
2000, Gore returned to the nation's
political main stage with "An Inconvenient Truth," a documentary film
detailing global warming's effects on the planet, in 2006. The widely acclaimed
film went on to win an Academy Award for best documentary in 2007.
In the movie, Gore explains how the levels of carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse gases have grown exponentially in the last few decades and how that
has led to changes in the Earth's climate, such as shrinking polar ice caps and
an increase in the number of hurricanes and other violent storms.
To counteract the effects of global warming, Gore has pushed for policies that
would reduce the emission of carbon dioxide, such as greater energy
conservation and the development of alternative energy
sources like wind and solar energy. Gore has also advocated for
governments to tax the emission of carbon dioxide.
Gore and the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was awarded the
Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for increasing awareness of the climate change issue
and for advocating for policies that could potentially offset the effects of
global warming.
Gore's return to the political arena has drawn increased scrutiny, particularly
of his energy use. In 2007, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research chastised
Gore for "extravagant energy use" at his Nashville, Tennessee,
mansion.
Gore subsequently has installed solar panels, a geothermal heating and cooling
system, compact fluorescent light bulbs and other energy-saving technologies in
his home.
All AboutAl Gore ¥ Global Climate Change ¥ Energy Policy
ATTACHMENT II
Gore
challenges US to ditch oil
Please turn on JavaScript. Media
requires JavaScript to play.
BBC News
July 18, 2008
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7513002.stm>
Al Gore sets his oil challenge to Americans
The Nobel laureate and former US vice- president, Al Gore, has urged Americans
to abandon electricity generated by fossil fuels within a decade.
Mr Gore compared the scale of the challenge to that of putting a man on the
moon in the 1960s.
He said it did not make sense that the US was borrowing money from China to
burn oil from the Middle East which then contributed to climate change.
Critics say weaning the US off fossil fuels is not possible within a decade.
Mr Gore, who won the Nobel Peace Prize last year for his work on climate
change, insists his goal is achievable and affordable.
ÒWe have a hundred
years of infrastructure with trillions of dollars of investment that is not
simply going to be made obsoleteÓ
Robby Diamond,
Securing America's Future Energy
"The answer is to end our reliance on carbon-based fuels," he said in
a speech in Washington.
"When you connect the dots, it turns out that the real solutions to the
climate crisis are the very same measures needed to renew our economy and
escape the trap of ever-rising energy prices."
To secure this green revolution, Mr Gore said the single most important policy
change would be to "tax what we burn - not what we earn".
Green campaign?
Mr Gore's speech elicited huge cheers from a packed conference hall near the
White House, but whether his message is taken up in the presidential election
campaign depends on how much the electorate warms to his vision, says the BBC's
Warren Bull.
Mr Gore said US presidential contenders Democrat Barack Obama and Republican
John McCain were way ahead of most politicians in the fight against global
climate change.
They appear to agree on the need for progress on green issues, says our
correspondent.
President George W Bush has often been criticised for not doing enough to
tackle climate change.
At the recent G8 summit of developed nations in Japan, he did move the US
closer to a consensus on climate change, by agreeing to language which makes
achieving 50% cuts in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 a G8 "vision".
Cold turkey
Electricity generated from non-fossil sources amounted to almost 28% of the
total in 2007, according to US government figures, with most of that coming
from nuclear power.
Hydro-electric stations generated nearly 6% of US electricity needs and other
renewable sources such as wind, solar and wood accounted for 2.5%.
Burning coal provided almost half of US electricity last year.
Mr Gore's ambitious plan would still rely on nuclear energy for a fifth of
America's energy needs. Many see the goal as unachievable.
Robby Diamond, president of a bipartisan think tank called Securing America's
Future Energy, said weaning the nation off fossil fuels could not be done in a
decade.
"The country is not going to be able to go cold turkey," he told the
Associated Press.
"We have a hundred years of infrastructure with trillions of dollars of
investment that is not simply going to be made obsolete."
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/7513002.stm
Published: 2008/07/18 08:24:39 GMT
© BBC MMVIII
ATTACHMENT III
Gore
Calls for Carbon-Free Electric Power
By
DAVID STOUT
The New York Times (nytimes.com)
July 18, 2008
<http://tinyurl.com/5pmu2m>
WASHINGTON — Former Vice President Al Gore said on Thursday that
Americans must abandon electricity generated by fossil fuels within a decade
and rely on the sun, the winds and other environmentally friendly sources of
power, or risk losing their national security as well as their creature
comforts.
ÒThe survival of the United States of America as we know it is at risk,Ó Mr.
Gore said in a speech to an energy conference here. ÒThe future of human
civilization is at stake.Ó
Mr. Gore called for the kind of concerted national effort that enabled
Americans to walk on the moon 39 years ago this month, just eight years after
President John F. Kennedy famously embraced that goal. He said the goal
of producing all of the nationÕs electricity from Òrenewable energy and truly
clean, carbon-free sourcesÓ within 10 years is not some farfetched vision,
although he said it would require fundamental changes in political thinking and
personal expectations.
ÒThis goal is achievable, affordable and transformative,Ó Mr. Gore said in his
remarks at the conference. ÒIt represents a challenge to all Americans, in
every walk of life — to our political leaders, entrepreneurs, innovators,
engineers, and to every citizen.Ó
Although Mr. Gore has made global warming and energy conservation his
signature issues, winning a Nobel Prize for his efforts, his speech on
Thursday argued that the reasons for renouncing fossil fuels go far beyond
concern for the climate.
In it, he cited military-intelligence studies warning of Òdangerous national
security implicationsÓ tied to climate change, including the possibility of
Òhundreds of millions of climate refugeesÓ causing instability around the
world, and said the United States is dangerously vulnerable because of its
reliance on foreign oil.
Doubtless aware that his remarks would be met with skepticism, or even
ridicule, in some quarters, Mr. Gore insisted in his speech that the goal of
carbon-free power is not only achievable but practical, and that businesses
would embrace it once they saw that it made fundamental economic sense.
Mr. Gore said the most important policy change in the transformation would be
taxes on carbon dioxide production, with an accompanying reduction in payroll
taxes. ÒWe should tax what we burn, not what we earn,Ó he said.
The former vice president said in his speech that he could not recall a worse
confluence of problems facing the country: higher gasoline prices, jobs being
Òoutsourced,Ó the home mortgage industry in turmoil. ÒMeanwhile, the war in
Iraq continues, and now the war in Afghanistan appears to be getting worse,Ó he
said.
By calling for new political leadership and speaking disdainfully of Òdefenders
of the status quo,Ó Mr. Gore was hurling a dart at the man who defeated him for
the presidency in 2000, George W. Bush. Critics of Mr. Bush say
that his policies are too often colored by his background in the oil business.
A crucial shortcoming in the countryÕs political leadership is a failure to
view interlocking problems as basically one problem that is Òdeeply ironic in
its simplicity,Ó Mr. Gore said, namely Òour dangerous over-reliance on
carbon-based fuels.Ó
ÒWeÕre borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it
in ways that destroy the planet,Ó Mr. Gore said. ÒEvery bit of thatÕs got to
change.Ó
And it can change, he said, citing some scientistsÕ estimates that enough solar
energy falls on the surface of the earth in 40 minutes to meet the worldÕs
energy needs for a year, and that the winds that blow across the Midwest every
day could meet the countryÕs daily electricity needs.
Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, the presumptive Democratic
candidate for president, immediately praised Mr. GoreÕs speech. ÒFor decades,
Al Gore has challenged the skeptics in Washington on climate change and
awakened the conscience of a nation to the urgency of this threat,Ó Mr. Obama
said.
A shift away from fossil fuels would make the United States a leader instead of
a sometime rebel on energy and conservation issues worldwide, Mr. Gore said.
Nor, he said, would the hard work of people who toil on oil rigs and deep in
the earth be for naught. ÒWe should guarantee good jobs in the fresh air and
sunshine for any coal miner displaced by impacts on the coal industry,Ó he said
by way of example. ÒEvery single one of them.Ó
ÒOf course, there are those who will tell us that this canÕt be done,Ó he conceded.
ÒBut even those who reap the profits of the carbon age have to recognize the
inevitability of its demise. As one OPEC oil minister observed, ÔThe
Stone Age didnÕt end because of a shortage of stones.Õ Ó
The Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens said in a statement that Mr. GoreÕs plan
would still not address Òthe stranglehold that foreign oil has on our country.Ó
Mr. Pickens has called for a blend of government leadership and private
enterprise to harness the full potential of wind power to help break what he
calls Òour deadly addiction to foreign oil.Ó
ATTACHMENT IV
The
(Annotated) Gore Energy Speech
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
The New York Times
July 17, 2008
<http://tinyurl.com/6jpg8w>
[UPDATE, 7/19
5:30 p.m.: Al Gore carried his campaign for an energy transformation in the
United States to the blogosphere on Saturday with an appearance at the Netroots Nation conference of ÒprogressiveÓ bloggers in Austin, Tex.] Former Vice President Al Gore gave a speech in Washington laying out his new approach
to the entwined challenges of limiting risks from global warming and
instability from rising energy prices and declining supplies of fossil fuels.
He calls for the United States to produce all electricity
from Òcarbon-free sourcesÓ by 2018. This
represents quite a shift from his tight focus on the Òclimate crisisÓ as the
great challenge of our time. The prepared text is below. Some Democrats in
Congress werenÕt thrilled with the timing, according to TheHill.com, given the focus now on pain
at the pump.[ 25]
In a Times article on the speech by John Broder, Mr. Gore implied that his timetable and targets for de-carbonizing the
countryÕs electricity sources were
intentionally super-sized: ÒI see my role as enlarging the political space in
which Senator Obama or Senator McCain can confront this issue as president next
year,Ó Mr. Gore said.
Both presidential candidates responded to the speech, according to the story:
Mr. Obama (written statement): ÒFor decades, Al Gore has challenged the
skeptics in Washington on climate change and awakened the conscience of a
nation to the urgency of this threat. I strongly agree with Vice President Gore
that we cannot drill our way to energy independence, but must fast-track
investments in renewable sources of energy like solar power, wind power and
advanced biofuels, and those are the investments I will make as president.Ó
Mr. McCain (a spokesman): ÒJohn McCain has been a leader in the fight against
global climate change, working with Democrats on this issue since 2003, but no
one has more successfully recruited Americans into this effort than Al Gore.
This is a key issue, and John McCain has put solutions over partisanship to
pursue meaningful, market-driven cap and trade legislation aimed at drastically
reducing harmful carbon emissions.Ó
LetÕs dive in and explore Mr. GoreÕs latest proposals on energy and climate
through the document annotation method developed her over the last few months in
examining climate speeches and statements by
President Bush, Senator John McCain, and the Group
of 8 industrialized nations.
(Click here for the unadorned text and
video of Mr. GoreÕs energy speech.)
A Generational Challenge to Repower America
(prepared
text distributed by Mr. GoreÕs office)
D.A.R. Constitution Hall, Washington, D.C.
Ladies and
gentlemen:
There
are times in the history of our nation when our very way of life depends upon
dispelling illusions and awakening to the challenge of a present danger. In
such moments, we are called upon to move quickly and boldly to shake off
complacency, throw aside old habits and rise, clear-eyed and alert, to the
necessity of big changes. Those who, for whatever reason, refuse to do their
part must either be persuaded to join the effort or asked to step aside. This
is such a moment. [
6]
The Gore speech
(continued):
The
survival of the United States of America as we know it is at risk. And even
more – if more should be required – the future of human
civilization is at stake. [
9] I donÕt
remember a time in our country when so many things seemed to be going so wrong
simultaneously. Our economy is in terrible shape and getting worse, gasoline
prices are increasing dramatically, and so are electricity rates. Jobs are
being outsourced. Home mortgages are in trouble. Banks, automobile companies
and other institutions we depend upon are under growing pressure. Distinguished
senior business leaders are telling us that this is just the beginning unless
we find the courage to make some major changes quickly.
The climate crisis, in particular, is getting a lot worse – much more
quickly than predicted. Scientists with access to data from Navy submarines
traversing underneath the North polar ice cap have warned that there is now a
75 percent chance that within five years the entire ice cap will completely
disappear during the summer months. This will further increase the melting
pressure on Greenland. According to experts, the Jakobshavn glacier, one of
GreenlandÕs largest, is moving at a faster rate than ever before, losing 20 million
tons of ice every day, equivalent to the amount of water used every year by the
residents of New York City.
[ Andy Revkin
- On Arctic ice trends, I have a post coming shortly on the latest update from
the worldÕs leading teams of sea ice experts, showing this yearÕs retreat is
unlikely to match last yearÕs, while the long-term trend is still heading
toward ever less summer ice. IÕll try to find out where the sub data came from.
Only one group I know of has posited an ice-free Arctic Ocean in summers by
2013. On Greenland, the picture is far more complex than the way it is
portrayed here. Other glaciers have slowed and, overall — as IÕve written
here recently — new studies show no fresh signs of imminent destabilization of the
ice.]
Two
major studies from military intelligence experts have warned our leaders about
the dangerous national security implications of the climate crisis, including
the possibility of hundreds of millions of climate refugees destabilizing
nations around the world. Just two days ago, 27 senior statesmen and retired
military leaders warned of the national security threat from an Òenergy
tsunamiÓ that would be triggered by a loss of our access to foreign oil.
Meanwhile, the war in Iraq continues, and now the war in Afghanistan appears to
be getting worse.
[ Andy Revkin
- The challenge for Mr. Gore and others trying to boost energy security and
limit climate risks at the same time is that the energy gap is here and now, while the worst impacts of climate
destabilization
still are mainly someday and somewhere..]
And by
the way, our weather sure is getting strange, isnÕt it? There seem to be more
tornadoes than in living memory, longer droughts, bigger downpours and record
floods. Unprecedented fires are burning in California and elsewhere in the
American West. Higher temperatures lead to drier vegetation that makes kindling
for mega-fires of the kind that have been raging in Canada, Greece, Russia,
China, South America, Australia and Africa. Scientists in the Department of
Geophysics and Planetary Science at Tel Aviv University tell us that for every
one degree increase in temperature, lightning strikes will go up another 10
percent. And it is lightning, after all, that is principally responsible for
igniting the conflagration in California today.
[ Andy Revkin
- Some of the impacts Mr. Gore describes, including rising risks of forest
fires, are detailed in a new climate report from the Bush administration. But why mention tornadoes?
ThereÕs been no
evidence of an increase in dangerous tornadoes since careful records have been
kept (great graphic at this link). ItÕs really no different stressing ÒstrangeÓ weather in a push for limiting greenhouse
gases than doing so to fight the same policy shift. Remember all the yelling
about global cooling
because of cool global temperatures recently?]
Like a
lot of people, it seems to me that all these problems are bigger than any of
the solutions that have thus far been proposed for them, and thatÕs been
worrying me. IÕm convinced that one reason weÕve seemed paralyzed in the face
of these crises is our tendency to offer old solutions to each crisis
separately – without taking the others into account. And these outdated
proposals have not only been ineffective – they almost always make the
other crises even worse.
Yet when we look at all three of these seemingly intractable challenges at the
same time, we can see the common thread running through them, deeply ironic in
its simplicity: our dangerous over-reliance on carbon-based fuels is at the
core of all three of these challenges – the economic, environmental and
national security crises. WeÕre borrowing money from China to buy oil from the
Persian Gulf to burn it in ways
that destroy the planet. Every bit of thatÕs got to change. But if we grab hold
of that common thread and pull it hard, all of these complex problems begin to
unravel and we will find that weÕre holding the answer to all of them right in
our hand.
[ Andy Revkin - Mr. Gore appears to have shifted from his original stance
that climate change alone was the Òplanetary emergencyÓ of our time to the multi-pronged view that
including it in a basket of reasons to undertake a nonpolluting Òenergy questÓ makes more sense. This is a
position articulated years ago by quite a few scientists, particularly Richard Smalley, the Nobel laureate in chemistry
who became an
evangelist for an energy revolution before his death from leukemia.]
The
answer is to end our reliance on carbon-based fuels. In my search for genuinely
effective answers to the climate crisis, I have held a series of Òsolutions
summitsÓ with engineers, scientists, and CEOs. In those discussions, one thing
has become abundantly clear: when you connect the dots, it turns out that the
real solutions to the climate crisis are the very same measures needed to renew
our economy and escape the trap of ever-rising energy prices. Moreover, they
are also the very same solutions we need to guarantee our national security
without having to go to war in the Persian Gulf.
What if we could use fuels that are not expensive, donÕt cause pollution and
are abundantly available right here at home? We have such fuels. Scientists
have confirmed that enough solar energy falls on the surface of the earth every
40 minutes to meet 100 percent of the entire worldÕs energy needs for a full
year. Tapping just a small portion of this solar energy could provide all of
the electricity America uses. And enough wind power blows through the Midwest
corridor every day to also meet 100 percent of US electricity demand. Geothermal
energy, similarly, is capable of providing enormous supplies of electricity for
America.
The quickest, cheapest and best way to start using all this renewable energy is
in the production of electricity. In fact, we can start right now using solar power,
wind power and geothermal power to make electricity for our homes and
businesses. But to make this exciting potential a reality, and truly solve our
nationÕs problems, we need a new start. [ 10]
ThatÕs why IÕm proposing today a strategic initiative designed to free us from
the crises that are holding us down and to regain control of our own destiny.
ItÕs not the only thing we need to do. But this strategic challenge is the
linchpin of a bold new strategy needed to re-power America. [ 12]
Today I challenge our nation to commit to producing 100 percent of our
electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources within 10
years. This goal is achievable, affordable and transformative. It represents a
challenge to all Americans – in every walk of life: to our political
leaders, entrepreneurs, innovators, engineers, and to every citizen. [ 1]
[ Andy Revkin
- ThereÕs no reason not to think big, although it might be harder for Mr. Gore
to make this kind of statement if already in office, or seeking one, because it
would be hard to find experts immersed in the challenges of generating, storing
and distributing electricity at large scale who could chart an achievable or
affordable 10-year path to doing this. Joe Romm at ClimateProgress.org said a
more realistic ambitious goal would be 50-percent renewable electricity sources by 2020. And of course ÒaffordableÓ is a
word dependent entirely on public attitudes, so if the public can be energized
sufficiently by leadership or circumstances, theoretically anything is
possible. That remains a big Òif.Ó HereÕs some recent coverage of the limits
and promise of wind
power and solar power and ways of storing electricity for sunless, windless stretches.]
A few
years ago, it would not have been possible to issue such a challenge. But
hereÕs whatÕs changed: the sharp cost reductions now beginning to take place in
solar, wind, and geothermal power – coupled with the recent dramatic
price increases for oil and coal – have radically changed the economics
of energy.
[ Andy Revkin - The price differential between renewable
energy sources and coal burning is shifting, but a 10-year transformation is
hard to foresee given the incredibly small base from which solar is growing (see the solar link in the
previous annotation) and the long timeline for boosting geothermal generation,
among other issues. An Energy
Department review of geothermal sources last year said we might be able to generate as much
electricity by 2050 that way as is now produced with nuclear plants. But
currently nuclear generation is less than 20 percent of the national
electricity pie. Sure, that might be accelerated, but 10 years?]
When I
first went to Congress 32 years ago, I listened to experts testify that if oil
ever got to $35 a barrel, then renewable sources of energy would become
competitive. Well, today, the price of oil is over $135 per barrel. And sure
enough, billions of dollars of new investment are flowing into the development
of concentrated solar thermal, photovoltaics, windmills, geothermal plants, and
a variety of ingenious new ways to improve our efficiency and conserve
presently wasted energy.
And as the demand for renewable energy grows, the costs will continue to fall.
Let me give you one revealing example: the price of the specialized silicon
used to make solar cells was recently as high as $300 per kilogram. But the
newest contracts have prices as low as $50 a kilogram.
You know, the same thing happened with computer chips – also made out of
silicon. The price paid for the same performance came down by 50 percent every
18 months – year after year, and thatÕs whatÕs happened for 40 years in a
row. To those who argue that we do not yet have the technology to accomplish
these results with renewable energy: I ask them to come with me to meet the
entrepreneurs who will drive this revolution. IÕve seen what they are doing and
I have no doubt that we can meet this challenge.
To those who say the costs are still too high: I ask them to consider whether
the costs of oil and coal will ever stop increasing if we keep relying on
quickly depleting energy sources to feed a rapidly growing demand all around
the world. When demand for oil and coal increases, their price goes up. When
demand for solar cells increases, the price often comes down.
When we send money to foreign countries to buy nearly 70 percent of the oil we
use every day, they build new skyscrapers and we lose jobs. [ 29]
[ 34] When we
spend that money building solar arrays and windmills, we build competitive
industries and gain jobs here at home. [ 8]
[ 17]
Of course there are those who will tell us this canÕt be done. Some of the
voices we hear are the defenders of the status quo – the ones with a
vested interest in perpetuating the current system, no matter how high a price
the rest of us will have to pay. But even those who reap the profits of the
carbon age have to recognize the inevitability of its demise. As one OPEC oil
minister observed, ÒThe Stone Age didnÕt end because of a shortage of stones.Ó
To those who say 10 years is not enough time, I respectfully ask them to
consider what the worldÕs scientists are telling us about the risks we face if
we donÕt act in 10 years. The leading experts predict that we have less than 10
years to make dramatic changes in our global warming pollution lest we lose our
ability to ever recover from this environmental crisis. When the use of oil and
coal goes up, pollution goes up. When the use of solar, wind and geothermal
increases, pollution comes down.
To those who say the challenge is not politically viable: I suggest they go
before the American people and try to defend the status quo. Then bear witness
to the peopleÕs appetite for change. I for one do not believe our country can
withstand 10 more years of the status quo. Our families cannot stand 10 more
years of gas price increases. Our workers cannot stand 10 more years of job
losses and outsourcing of factories. Our economy cannot stand 10 more years of
sending $2 billion every 24 hours to foreign countries for oil. And our
soldiers and their families cannot take another 10 years of repeated troop
deployments to dangerous regions that just happen to have large oil supplies.
What could we do instead for the next 10 years? What should we do during the
next 10 years? Some of our greatest accomplishments as a nation have resulted
from commitments to reach a goal that fell well beyond the next election: the
Marshall Plan, Social Security, the interstate highway system. But a political
promise to do something 40 years from now is universally ignored because
everyone knows that itÕs meaningless.
Ten years is about the maximum time that we as a nation can hold a steady aim
and hit our target. When President John F. Kennedy challenged our nation to
land a man on the moon and bring him back safely in 10 years, many people
doubted we could accomplish that goal. But 8 years and 2 months later, Neil
Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the surface of the moon.
[ Andy Revkin - Many scientists and engineers have looked to
the Apollo program as a metaphor, but stressed that the energy transformation
is a far greater challenge. HereÕs what one solar expert told me when I
interviewed him for a
climate story in AARP Magazine: ÒWe already have electricity coming out of everybodyÕs wall
socket,Ó says Nathan S. Lewis, 51, a chemistry professor who codirects the
Powering the Planet project at Caltech. ÒThis is not a new function weÕre
seeking. ItÕs a substitution. ItÕs not like NASA sending a man to the moon.
ItÕs like finding a new way to send a man to the moon when Southwest Airlines
is already flying there every hour handing out peanuts.Ó]
To be
sure, reaching the goal of 100 percent renewable and truly clean electricity
within 10 years will require us to overcome many obstacles. At present, for
example, we do not have a unified national grid that is sufficiently advanced
to link the areas where the sun shines and the wind blows to the cities in the
East and the West that need the electricity.
Our national electric grid is critical infrastructure, as vital to the health
and security of our economy as our highways and telecommunication networks.
Today, our grids are antiquated, fragile, and vulnerable to cascading failure.
Power outages and defects in the current grid system cost US businesses more
than $120 billion dollars a year. It has to be upgraded anyway.
We could further increase the value and efficiency of a Unified National Grid
by helping our struggling auto giants switch to the manufacture of plug-in
electric cars. An electric vehicle fleet would sharply reduce the cost of
driving a car, reduce pollution, and increase the flexibility of our
electricity grid. At the same time, of course, we need to greatly improve our
commitment to efficiency and conservation. ThatÕs the best investment we can
make.
AmericaÕs transition to renewable energy sources must also include adequate
provisions to assist those Americans who would unfairly face hardship. For
example, we must recognize those who have toiled in dangerous conditions to
bring us our present energy supply. We should guarantee good jobs in the fresh
air and sunshine for any coal miner displaced by impacts on the coal industry.
Every single one of them.
Of course, we could and should speed up this transition by insisting that the
price of carbon-based energy include the costs of the environmental damage it
causes. I have long supported a sharp reduction in payroll taxes with the
difference made up in CO2 taxes. We should tax what we burn, not what we earn.
This is the single most important policy change we can make.
[ Andy Revkin - Mr. Gore is sticking with his preference for taxing sources of emissions and limiting costs for citizens
that bears no resemblance to Òcap and tradeÓ bills like those that have faltered in
Congress of late and shares some of the architecture, if not details, of the Òcap and dividendÓ approach of Peter Barnes and a similar proposal from James
Hansen, the
NASA climate scientist who has moved far into the policy realm lately.]
In order
to foster international cooperation, it is also essential that the United
States rejoin the global community and lead efforts to secure an international
treaty at Copenhagen in December of next year that includes a cap on CO2
emissions and a global partnership that recognizes the necessity of addressing
the threats of extreme poverty and disease as part of the worldÕs agenda for
solving the climate crisis.
Of course the greatest obstacle to meeting the challenge of 100 percent
renewable electricity in 10 years may be the deep dysfunction of our politics
and our self-governing system as it exists today. In recent years, our politics
has tended toward incremental proposals made up of small policies designed to
avoid offending special interests, alternating with occasional baby steps in
the right direction. Our democracy has become
sclerotic at a time when these crises require boldness. It is only a truly
dysfunctional system that would buy into the perverse logic that the short-term
answer to high gasoline prices is drilling for more oil ten years from now.
Am I the only one who finds it strange that our government so often adopts a
so-called solution that has absolutely nothing to do with the problem it is
supposed to address? When people rightly complain about higher gasoline prices,
we propose to give more money to the oil companies and pretend that theyÕre
going to bring gasoline prices down.
It will do nothing of the sort, and everyone knows it. If we keep going back to
the same policies that have never ever worked in the past and have served only
to produce the highest gasoline prices in history alongside the greatest oil
company profits in history, nobody should be surprised if we get the same
result over and over again. But the Congress may be poised to move in that
direction anyway because some of them are being stampeded by lobbyists for
special interests that know how to make the system work for them instead of the
American people.
If you want to know the truth about gasoline prices, here it is: the exploding
demand for oil, especially in places like China, is overwhelming the rate of
new discoveries by so much that oil prices are almost certain to continue
upward over time no matter what the oil companies promise. And politicians
cannot bring gasoline prices down in the short term.
However, there actually is one extremely effective way to bring the costs of
driving a car way down within a few short years. The way to bring gas prices
down is to end our dependence on oil and use the renewable sources that can
give us the equivalent of $1 per gallon gasoline.
Many Americans have begun to wonder whether or not weÕve simply lost our
appetite for bold policy solutions. And folks who claim to know how our system
works these days have told us we might as well forget about our political
system doing anything bold, especially if it is contrary to the wishes of
special interests. And IÕve got to admit, that sure seems to be the way things
have been going. But IÕve begun to hear different voices in this country from
people who are not only tired of baby steps and special interest politics, but
are hungry for a new, different and bold approach.
We are on the eve of a presidential election. We are in the midst of an
international climate treaty process that will conclude its work before the end
of the first year of the new presidentÕs term. It is a great error to say that
the United States must wait for others to join us in this matter. In fact, we
must move first, because that is the key to getting others to follow; and
because moving first is in our own national interest.
So I ask you to join with me to call on every candidate, at every level, to
accept this challenge – for America to be running on 100 percent
zero-carbon electricity in 10 years. ItÕs time for us to move beyond empty
rhetoric. We need to act now.
This is a generational moment. A moment when we decide our own path and our
collective fate. IÕm asking you – each of you – to join me and
build this future. Please join the WE campaign at wecansolveit.org. We need
you. And we need you now. WeÕre committed to changing not just light bulbs, but
laws. And laws will only change with leadership.
On July 16, 1969, the United States of America was finally ready to meet
President KennedyÕs challenge of landing Americans on the moon. I will never
forget standing beside my father a few miles from the launch site, waiting for
the giant Saturn 5 rocket to lift Apollo 11 into the sky. I was a young man, 21
years old, who had graduated from college a month before and was enlisting in
the United States Army three weeks later.
I will never forget the inspiration of those minutes. The power and the
vibration of the giant rocketÕs engines shook my entire body. As I watched the
rocket rise, slowly at first and then with great speed, the sound was
deafening. We craned our necks to follow its path until we were looking
straight up into the air. And then four days later, I watched along with
hundreds of millions of others around the world as Neil Armstrong took one
small step to the surface of the moon and changed the history of the human
race. We must now lift our nation to reach another goal that will change
history.
Our entire civilization depends upon us now embarking on a new journey of
exploration and discovery. Our success depends on our willingness as a people
to undertake this journey and to complete it within 10 years. Once again, we
have an opportunity to take a giant leap for humankind. [19]
List of
Distribution
Marc A. Levy
Deputy Director
Center for International Earth Science Information (CIESIN)
Columbia University
61 Route 9W
P. O. Box 1000
Palisades, NY 10964 USA
tel: (+1) (845) 365‑8964
fax: (+1) (845) 365‑8922
mlevy@ciesin.columbia.edu
http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu
Hans Rudolf Herren, Ph.D.
President
Millennium Institute
2200 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 650
Arlington, VA 22201-3357 USA
Tel: (+1-703) 841-0048
Fax: (+1-703) 841-0050
Cell: (+1-530) 867-4569
hh@millennium-institute.org
hansrherren@mac.com
http://www.millennium-institute.org
http://www.millenniuminstitute.net/
www.threshold21.com
http://www.biovision.ch
http://www.eduvision.or.ke
Weishuang Qu, Dr.
Director of Modeling and Analysis
Millennium Institute
2200 Wilson Blvd, Suite 650
Arlington, VA 22201-3357
Tel: +1-703-841-0048
Fax: +1-703-841-0050
Cel: 301-873-3073
wq@millennium-institute.org
www.millennium-institute.org
Dr. Harold P. Sjursen
Professor of Philosophy
Associate Provost for International Education and Research
Director, Liberal Studies
Polytechnic University
5 Metrotech Center
Brooklyn, New York 11201
USA
Tel: 718-260-3597
Fax: 718-788-4268
Cel: +1 (917) 743-2390
hsjursen@duke.poly.edu
hsjursen@poly.edu
hsjursen@gmail.com
http://www.poly.edu/
Sunil Kumar, Ph.D.
Dean of Graduate School
Associate Provost
Professor of Mechanical Engineering
Polytechnic University
Six MetroTech Center, Rm. RH-102
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel: (718) 260-3182
Fax: (718) 260-3624
skumar@poly.edu
Carl Skelton
Director, Integrated Digital Media Institute
idmi.poly.edu
Polytechnic University
Six MetroTech Center, RH 213
Brooklyn, NY 11201
718-260-4018
cskelton@poly.edu
Akira Onishi, Prof. Dr.
Professor Emeritus, Soka University
Director, Centre for Global Modeling
2-16-7-1915 Konan
Minato-ku, Tokyo 108-0075
Japan
Tel/Fax: +81-3-5783-0023
Or
FOST (Foundations for Fusion of Science and Technology)
1-4-24 Hiyoshi Honcho
Kohoku-ku Yokohama-shi, 223-0062
Japan
onishi@cgmfost.org
akira.onishi@palette.plala.or.jp
Tatiana Novikova, Ph.D., Dr. Sci.
Professor,
Novosibirsk State University
Department of Economics
Pirogova str. 2
Novosibirsk, 630090
Russia
and Head Scientist
Institute of Economics and Industrial Engineering , Russian Academy of
Sciences,
Lavrentiev Ave., 17,
Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia
Tel: +7-383-330 1052
Fax: +7-383-330 2580
e-mail: tsnovikova@mail.ru
Dr. Dorien J. DeTombe
Chair international & Euro Operational Research Working Group
Complex Societal Problems & Issues
P.O. Box. 3286, 1001 AB Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Europe
Tel: +31 20 6927526
E-Mail: DorienDeTombe@hotmail.com
http://www.geocities.com/doriendetombe
*******************************************************************************
* Takeshi Utsumi, Ph.D., P.E., Chairman, GLOSAS/USA
*
* (GLObal Systems Analysis and Simulation Association in the U.S.A.)
*
* Laureate of Lord Perry Award for Excellence in Distance Education
*
* Founder and V.P. for Technology and Coordination of
*
* Global University System (GUS)
*
* 43-23 Colden Street, Flushing, NY 11355-5913, U.S.A.
*
* Tel: 718-939-0928; Email: utsumi@columbia.edu
*
* http://www.itu.int/wsis/goldenbook/search/display.asp?Quest=8032562&lang=en
*
* http://www.friends-partners.org/GLOSAS/
*
* U.S. Federal Tax Exempt ID: 11-2999676 <http://tinyurl.com/534gxc>
*
* New York State Tax Exempt ID: 217837 <http://tinyurl.com/47wqbo>
*
*******************************************************************************