• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Al Gore’s Astronomical Effort

    Last week Nobel Laureate and climate change fanatic Al Gore called for a man-on-the-moon effort to reduce carbon dioxide to curb global warming. He proposed to have 100 % of our nation’s energy coming from renewable, carbon-free energy sources in only a decade. Likening his efforts to that of President JFK, he said:

    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.”

    Gore, claiming that the history of civilization is at stake, is willing to spend up to $3 trillion (yes, with a “t”) to achieve emissions free energy by 2018. Thanks to some research and number crunching from The Heritage Foundation’s David Kreutzer, Ph.D. and Patrick Tyrrell, we found that Al Gore’s proposal is the equivalent of 15 man-on-the-moon efforts in terms of cost.

    The NASA Budget from 1961-71 was roughly $31 billion in current dollars. In 2008 dollars it equates to slightly less than $200 billion. So, if it takes a $3 trillion federal spending initiative over 10 years to wean oil, natural gas and coal out of the picture, it would cost 15 times as much as JFK spent to bring a man to the moon and back in ten years.

    And if the United States embarks on this renewable journey alone, all of this economic pain could be for naught. Every seven to ten days China is bringing a new coal plant online. Other developing countries rightfully have economic development and meeting energy demands as a priority over reducing carbon dioxide. That isn’t to say they will always be mutually exclusive; however, countries that choose to battle global warming should do so in an economically rational way without consumers footing the bill and pushing people into poverty.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    5 Responses to Al Gore’s Astronomical Effort

    1. Theodore A. Rademach says:

      We all know Al GORE is a idiot and is working for the envirornmentist extremist. He is not a good person.

    2. Roy Fassel says:

      Al Gore has proven himself to be a fraud. His fight for globle warming reforms have little or no value. If we do away with the carbon fuels it would cause the largest hazardous waste (Gas,Fuel Oil, Etc)disposal problem in the history of the world, due to the protion of the barrel that is used in petrochemical and medical fields that we havn't found replacements for. Globle Warming,

      what has been the rise and fall cycle in the past 1000 and how does it years relate to present day

      industrial inputs.

    3. Joe Liberal says:

      Why are conservatives always against Nobel prize winners? That alone speaks volumes.

    4. Al R, Maryland says:

      Maybe Joe Liberal needs to research who Al Gore beat out for the Nobel Peace Prize, before making a comment like that. Search Irena Sendler, and then you tell me what Al Gore has done for peace, not to mention all his lies about the "hockey stick" theory. It actually speaks volumes, when you don't research what you are talking about.

    5. James Handley says:

      Tobacco industry lawyers and lobbyists wrote the script for climate deniers and delayers:

      1) Deny. Smoking doesn't cause cancer. ("Global warming is a hoax.")

      2) Assert controversy where there is little. "You can't prove smoking causes lung cancer." ("You can't prove global warming is real.")

      3) Blame the victim. "It's your our fault, there are warnings on the label — why did you start? you could have quit." ("It's your fault, you're addicted to oil, you should be "energy independent".)

      4) Argue that it's impossibile to do anything. "Banning smoking wouldn't matter, people would smoke anyway." ("Regulating greenhouse gas emissions and developing alternatives won't matter, the Chinese and Indians will burn coal anyway.")

      5) Argue cost-benefit. Tobacco is very profitable. Regulation costs more than the profits we make and would put poor tobacco farmers out of business. ("Fossil fuels are necessary for economic growth, serious action to reduce their use would destroy our economy and hurt poor people.")

      6) Bankruptcy. (We're not at this stage yet with either tobacco or climate.) "We're bankrupt and can't pay for the harm we've caused." Executives and the savvy shareholders have taken their money out of the company or out of the country.

      Heritage follows the tobacco script closely. They're starting to assert impossibility and cost-benefit now. (Of course they still deny but that's losing potency. And manufacturing controversy seems be losing effect, too. (Donald Pearlman at Patton, Boggs was an expert at faking climate science controversy.) Now it's blame the victim, impossiblity and cost-benefit. But the strategy only has to buy time so more profits can be made. And by that measure, it's succeeding just as well as the tobacco strategy has.

      Science will prevail, but climate change grows exponentially and irreversibly, so it may soon be too late to save much of civilization or Earth's biodiversity.

      Congratulations, Heritage, you're doing a great job stalling off the truth and delaying action that might save everything we know and love. Richard Mellon Scaife is getting his money's worth.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×