< Back to Front Page Text size +

Opinion: Gore as next EPA or energy chief?

Posted by David Beard, Boston.com Staff July 21, 2008 07:42 AM

(An opinion column from The Boston Globe)

By Derrick Z. Jackson, Globe Columnist

IT IS unlikely that a Nobel laureate, Oscar winner and former vice president of the United States would return to the nuts and bolts of the federal bureaucracy, but it is obvious who Barack Obama or John McCain should make either energy secretary or administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Given the impact each agency has on the other, they could hand both over to Al Gore so the nation has a shot at a coherent energy and environmental policy.

This week, Gore called for an effort akin to President Kennedy's mission to put a man on the moon to make the United States a carbon-free nation by 2018. In his vision, all electricity in the United States would come from renewable sun, wind, and geothermal power.

Gore said that according to scientists, enough sun falls on the earth every 40 minutes to supply 100 percent of the world's energy for a year. He said Midwestern winds could supply the United States with all the electricity it needs. With thinking like that, Gore could be called upon to liberate the scientists in the EPA - not to mention NASA and other agencies who have warned of the oncoming impact of global warming.

The EPA said this week that climate change will probably result in more intense storms, severe droughts, rising water levels and more loss of life. But of course, this is the EPA that serves under President Bush, who for eight years has been waiting for the "sound science" to tell him when it is time to act on global warming, and pooh-poohing the EPA into impotency. The EPA's report came a week after it declined to regulate the greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, a power the Supreme Court says it has under the Clean Air Act.

The EPA's inaction was no doubt meant to please the president. In yet another act of making the outrageous ordinary, Susan Dudley, the White House's administrator for information and regulatory affairs, wrote the EPA to say "there is strong disagreement with many of the legal, analytical, economic, science and policy interpretations." She wrote that the Clean Air Act "is a deeply flawed and unsuitable vehicle for reducing greenhouse gas emissions."

Dudley wrote that greenhouse gas regulation by the EPA "will not only harm the US economy, but will fail to provide an effective response to the global challenge of climate change. As the president observed in April: Decisions with such far-reaching impact should not be left to unelected regulators and judges."

Take that, scientists and Supreme Court.

Giving the EPA and Energy a new mission has to be one of the top priorities for the next president. The United States ranks only 39th on the world Environmental Performance Index compiled by researchers at Yale and Columbia. The United States ranks behind not only almost all of the developed world, but behind Chile, Ecuador, Slovenia, Hungary, Panama, Brazil, and the Dominican Republic.

Reacting to Gore's speech, presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama said renewable sources of energy "are the investments I will make as president." Virtual Republican presidential nominee John McCain said, "If the vice president says it's doable, I believe it's doable."

It will be interesting to see how doable the next president will make it. Obama will surely get overwhelming support from environmentalists, but the Obama campaign was mum this week on a USA Today story about Obama's support of the coal industry as Illinois senator. McCain says he will reduce greenhouse gases, but he has joined the politically expedient call for offshore oil drilling. The United States is already so neglectful in marine protection that out of a possible score of 100 the Yale EPI gives us only a 38.

Gore said, "I see my role as enlarging the political space in which Senator Obama or Senator McCain can confront the issue as president next year." The first step Obama or McCain could take to make sure the political space is safe for science is to see what Gore thinks about running the Department of Energy, or the EPA, or both.

Derrick Z. Jackson can be reached at jackson@globe.com.

  • CommentComment
  • EmailEmail
4 comments so far...
  1. Al Gore, the environmental expert? You are kidding, right? No, it's the Boston Globe, and you are hilariously serious.

    The Boston Globe and D Z Jackson. Only for the stupid or naive.

    Posted by Ron Fellers July 21, 08 05:44 PM
  1. True, Al Gore is not himself a scientist, but he has shown that he respects science and advocates scientific research as the starting point for new policy. This is unlike many politicians who would rather not be bothered by science or concerns for ordinary (i.e. un-wealthy) Americans because they are too busy pleasing their big donors. People love to decry the hypocrisy of Gore's energy-hungry home and his use of private jets, but it doesn't change the fact that he is at least advocating sensible, science-backed policy. He's not some immaculate prophet, but so what? His goal to achieve carbon-free energy is the one I (and millions in the US) would vote to pursue.

    Posted by Hayden Taylor July 22, 08 02:31 PM
  1. Sensible Science backed policy? Going carbon free by 2020 would seriously be the end of America. You think the Iraq war was expensive? He is advocating replacing the power grid, shuttering the industry that drove the industrial revolution, and building solar panels and windmills to power every American city and factory -- which are unproven, in practice, at even running whole bedroom communities.

    You can quote projections about the cost of wind power all day long -- what does it actually cost, right now, to deliver reliable wind power (so add the cost of the back up systems) to -- say -- New Jersey? What, you don't know? Neither does anyone else.

    So either he is actually advocating spending hundreds of millions on a good intention or he is in communication with an advanced alien civilization -- which would be really good news and I will sign on as soon as the actual plans are evaluated by engineers and accountants.

    Al Gore has no respect for science that runs counter to his already staked out positions.

    Posted by James D. Newman July 23, 08 01:48 AM
  1. James D Newman and Ron Fellers,
    Consider this, there are 45 countries on the planet that presently have 80% or more of their energy coming from Solar, Wind and Geothermal sources. With today's technology. Mr Newman, you cite the industrial revolution as an argument for the coal industry. That makes absolutely no sense. Why would we look to an event that happened 200+ years ago for a solution to a problem occurring today? Would you advocate the use of telegrams if scientists came out with a study that concluded the use of telephones of any kind were dangerous to our health? Or perhaps we should reintroduce the horse & carriage as primary personal transport instead of automobiles? Instead of looking back at old policies and out of date technologies, why not look forward to a green environmental policy with state of the art technology and champion this movement towards clean energy? Green business and policy is profitable and we have every technology we need right now to be carbon free and energy independent. Al Gore has a profound understanding of the impact we are having on this planet and also what we can do to eliminate this impact and stop global climate change. I would be extremely proud to have Al Gore as an energy administrator in this country and I think if you really consider what is at stake, you may as well.

    Posted by David Ventresca November 10, 08 04:08 PM
add your comment
Required
Required (will not be published)

This blogger might want to review your comment before posting it.

About the green blog Helping Boston live a greener, more environmentally friendly life.

contributors

Bennie DiNardo is the Boston Globe's deputy managing editor/multimedia
Beth Daley covers environmental issues for the Globe
Christine Chinlund is deputy health/science editor for the Globe.
David Beard is editor of Boston.com
Eric Bauer is site architect of Boston.com
Gideon Gil is the Globe's Health/Science editor
Glenn Yoder produces Boston.com's Lifestyle pages
Ron Agrella is Boston.com's features editor
Erin Ailworth covers energy and the business of the environment for the Globe.
Michael Prager is a Boston-area writer and blogger with a focus on green issues.
Bina Venkataraman covers environmental issues for the Globe.
Christopher Reidy covers business for the Globe.
archives

browse this blog

by category
  • Alternative Energy/Transportation
  • Environment and Health
  • Flora and Fauna
  • Greener Homes
  • Living Green
  • Wild Weather
;