Gore's Energy Plan: $5 Trillion and Counting

Reader Comments

Back to blog

Let us not forget that past behavior is often a precursor to future activities.

When Al Gore entered the White House with Bill Clinton in 1992, one of the first thing he talked about was a "carbon tax".

He was only the V.P. of course, so no one paid much attention.

Then, there was his answer to Rachel Carson's book; "Silent Spring"; Gore's own tome, "Earth in the Balance".

Al's been on this bandwagon a long time, so I do believe he is sincere in at least part of his posturing.

However, one need only look to the so called "documentary", "An Inconvenient Truth" and the distortions therein to realize he's off on another tack.

I don't think it's the money, per se, but I do think it's a pursuit of power and status. (the money doesn't hurt, either)

In my 62 years on the planet, I have never seen such a propaganda campaign such as this.

When the news media, a weather channel, prominent actors, politicians and the like all try to convince me of something, I immediately ask who's going to benefit?

Everyone pushing this global warming scenario has something coming their way if we buy into it.

And "buy" is the operative word here.

This thing is going to lower our standard of living simply by virtue of the added taxes on energy that the government is going to demand.

That's the cost factor alone. Sooner or later, they're going to start talking about rationing.

The Center for Data Analysis estimates that a bill already proposed (S.2191 Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act), will result in G.D.P. losses of at least $1.7 trillion immediately, reaching $4.8 trillion by year 2030.

Additionally, annual job losses will exceed 500,000 and the average household energy tab will increase by $467 per year.

In short, we are asked to cripple our economy, destroy our standard of living and give up our future economic security for a THEORY.

Yes, a theory. There is no scientific proof that global warming or climate change has anything to do with man made activities.

Consensus is NOT science.

There used to be a "consensus" that the earth was flat.

There used to be a "consensus" that the Sun and stars revolved around the earth.

There used to be a "consensus" that man could not safely travel at a speed faster than a galloping horse, lest he be torn to pieces.

The examples are endless.

But in this day of politically funded scientific studies, I fear we have entered a new "Dark Ages".

Make no mistake about it. Global Warming has nothing to do with climate and everything to do with raising taxes and giving the government total control over everything do, or aspire to do.

THOMAS WILLIAMS of TX 9:50AM July 22, 2008

GORE'S PLAN IN A FEW WORDS. DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO!

whs806 of TX 9:15PM July 21, 2008

Hi Rich,

That's a great guess, but Al Gore has admitted all along that he has enough money for life. I'm not saying I beleive what he's saying 100%, but he believes this to be true. So in his heart he's doing the right thing according to him.

With that being said, bringing the conversation about global warming could be one of the best things for Americans. We don't realize how lucky we have it. We live in one of the greatest countries in the world. We need to use some restraint though. We also need to have some gratitude for the things that we have.Energy efficiency is needed for sure. I support solar, wind etc, but I also support nuclear. Many people in the environmnetal community don't. His goal of 100% is off base perhaps, but you got to give him credit for bringing this conversation to the main stream. Global warming is caused by natural cycles, but the majority of scientist believe man is speeding the process up. Let's stop blaming and start to do something about this.

Joe H of CT 5:57PM July 21, 2008

The only reason gore is doing this is for money.

of 5:42PM July 21, 2008

What will it cost to do nothing? If oil prices keep rising because of the increase in demand, lower supply and lack of alternatives, how much will we pay? Not to mention that at least spending on things like wind, solar, nuclear, etc. can be money spent in the US instead of spending it on imported oil from Iran, Venezuela, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, etc.

Paul Kiesewetter of WA 5:27PM July 21, 2008

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Back to blog

Capital Commerce

Capital Commerce

U.S. News business reporter Matthew Bandyk examines the issues, people, and debates that shape the nexus of political and economic life in the nation's capital.

advertisement

advertisement