oh, I'm sorry, we're not supposed to do that anymore...

I don't know what to make of this, but I'm watching the speech now and I daresay he looks awfully presidential...

What aren't we supposed to do anymore? Emoticons? Or sarcastic emoticons?

Ugh!

I think the investment is SO worth it. We know for certain that every other country in the world will need this technology to survive the next 100 years...we might as well be a leader so we can profit from it.

I do see money spent on energy conservation, green technology development, and green job training as an INVESTMENT. I believe it will give the US a great return!

In all seriousness, I do feel like it's a good idea to switch everything over, but I think ten years is WAY too short a time. I think if you are going to set time lines they need to be realistic so those involved don't get discouraged.

i think its good that he's giving both candidates their fair shake in terms of credit for what they are planning to do in this area. love him or hate him, he's kind of the poster boy for these issues now.

I agree with ya Jill and Lil It is a good investment, but it's also too short a time line.

if we could harness his windbagness we would be set for life

LOL! Caterpillargirl!

Caterpillar!!

I totally agree with setting a 10 year goal - even if we fall a little short, we'll still be well on the way and that is the point. With people like Gore and T. Boone Pickens leading initiatives, it will be much easier to convince people to take the changeover seriously.

So, you honestly believe that it's possible for 100% of our energy to come from sustainable sources within 10 years?

Never mind...I missed the part where you said, "even if we fall a little short."

I guess to me the point of setting a goal is to have it achieved at that time, not to be well on your way to achieving it. I wish I could miss deadlines at work and say I was well on my way to making them!

even if we don't we have to start somewhere

I agree, I just don't think 10 years is a good place to start.

I'm a big fan of setting achievable goals to keep motivation alive so I don't really like this 10 year plan, but at least there's a goal I guess!

Whats that saying we learned in B school... SMART - Small, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, and Time sensitive....

This goal seems to miss those benchmarks.

We changed our entire economy from one of industrial based consumer output to a war machine in 6 months after Pearl Harbor, I think we can probably do this in 5 years if we had to.

As Hypno was saying the other day, most of this technology is available, it just needs to get produced on a massive scale. Recent developments have cut the cost of solar panels in half, for example (I heard it on NPR).

I don't think we are as far away as it might seem. I heard on NPR that one of the northern states like Wyoming is saying they could provide enough wind power to fuel the entire United States. Wind power technology is already developed and running in several areas.

I think it is a matter of getting it to the people and making investments to do this on a large scale.

I don't think anyone is saying the development will take longer than ten years. I, for one, am saying that it is the implementation that will take longer.

Lilkimbo, what timeline do you think would be more realistic? I agree that 10 years is probably too short, but think that having a shorter timeline expresses more urgency. I think if we really dedicated ourselves to this as a nation, we could come close. Especially with businessmen like T. Boone Pickens leading the way. You know if an oil guy is interested in an alternative energy source there must be a way to turn a pretty big profit off it, and where we can make money.....quick innovation usually follows!

I feel it will actually take about 25, so 20 would be a good number to shoot for.

I worked in news and always complained that I couldn't go on at the top of the hour and say 'the show's almost ready but it's been a crazy day, my back is killing me and the director's kid's school just called and now he's in a bad mood - so give us 4 more minutes...' so I LOVE the idea of having a goal but not having anything terrible happen if we're close but not quite there.

I do believe that if we knew that a giant wave was going to drown us if we didn't have it done in ten years, we'd have it done in 9 and 3/4 years.

Steph, that may be true, but that sense of urgency isn't there. You can give people a greater sense of urgency, but not that great. I'm not saying anything terrible will happen, but I do think people will get discouraged. Most people get discouraged if they set a goal and are only half way to achieving it when the time is up. I also think Gore will be easier to criticize in ten years if the time is up and its not achieved; he could be doing a disservice to his cause by setting too short a goal.

Steph, that may be true, but that sense of urgency isn't there. You can give people a greater sense of urgency, but not that great. I'm not saying anything terrible will happen, but I do think people will get discouraged. Most people get discouraged if they set a goal and are only half way to achieving it when the time is up. I also think Gore will be easier to criticize in ten years if the time is up and its not achieved; he could be doing a disservice to his cause by setting too short a goal.

I agree with stephley and racciciarone. When the US really commmits to something, we do it, and even if we did come up short (which might be more likely with something like this because the infrastructure is not adequate currently to get wind power generated in Wyoming to NYC, for example, in a cost effective way), we'll at least be moving in the right direction and well on our way to success.

In my opinion, it's commendable that he (and Pickens)is doing something and setting a timeline goal. Maybe it seems short, but it's better than 100 years.

Gore's already shot himself in the foot, so why shouldn't he shoot for the moon? He's already lost credibility with reasonably intelligent people. Maybe getting into a cannon and shooting himself in the direction of the moon is the best he can do.

Every time the news media forget to mention him, Al Gore finds some way to publicize his lunacy (luna=moon).

Hey everyone this calls for the electric slide! Everyone follow Al now.

"I totally agree with setting a 10 year goal - even if we fall a little short, we'll still be well on the way and that is the point. "

I completely agree! Better to set a goal and get halfway there than not get there at all.

Al seems to know quite a bit about the technology we have now. I understand the perspective that people think it can't be done overnight, but he seems to know more about what specifically would need to be done between now and then than the average person. I guess I am just curious about what the basis is for rejecting 10 years, but thinking 25 years would work. Maybe there are specific things Al thinks could be done within 10 years.

Someone mentioned that something would need to be done to get wind power from Wyoming to New York. Updating the energy grid is a major priority no matter what, but how can we just look at his simple statement and say that can't be done in 10 years?

And I feel bad for Al Gore. He could choose to spend his time doing pretty much anything. He could retire and travel, he could buy a ticket to the moon, he could invest in Halliburton, but god love him he chooses to spend it being an eco-nut. And gets harassed for it.

The basis is the fact that I've looked into this before and I just don't believe it can be done in 10 years. I'm sure I don't have as much expertise as Gore, but I have researched it. The sheer hours of manpower would make it extremely difficult to complete this in ten years. It would also take some time to convince investors to shift their funds over to alternate energy. We would need to convince people to fund it before we even begin wide-scale implementation. Yes, T. Boone Pickens is spending money on it now. But, even he doesn't have enough money to spend to make the U.S. 100% dependent on renewable sources of energy.

I guess it boils down to the fact that I really don't think even Al believes this can be done in ten years. I think he's setting that number to get attention for the cause. If that's the case, some will say it's justified because any attention for this cause is good. However, I still think he is doing the cause a disservice.

And, just out of curiosity, other than the fact that Gore set this number, why do you it can be done in ten years?

And I feel that it's better to set a goal and get all of the way there, then set too short a goal and get halfway there and then get all the way there in double the time.

No Hypno, let's call it the Solar Slide now.

Lilkimbo, ease up a little on the ten year thing - start with today and let the goal handle itself. Once things start happening, it often changes the way we view the overall project. Like yesterday's discussion of off-shore drilling, I think the biggest fear holding us up is how to make buckets money off this. Many things can be done in small steps and smaller groupings than the huge central power sources/grids we have now.

Steph, I would ease up on it if people stopped attacking me on it. Like I have stated several times, I do believe it's a good end goal, but I think the time should be longer. Never did I say that small steps should not be taken everyday. I am allowed to disagree with his time line. Maybe some other people should ease up on continuously questioning my disagreement. I am going to defend my position as long as people keep arguing with me about it.

Didn't mean it harshly, was just urging you to relax a little because you might be missing the forest for that tree.

I'm not though, that's the thing. I keep saying that this is something we should work towards. Others keep asking me why I don't think the ten year time is reasonable.

People are focusing on that one part of what I'm saying.