Carbon-neutral electric generation

In a major speech last week Al Gore called on the US to switch to zero carbon-emission electric generation within 10 years. It was a big idea and a big speech. Not too surprisingly, it was called impractical by many, but in a sign of how things have changed, the dominant media narrative seemed to lean more to "visionary" than "pie-in-the-sky".

Writing at TPMCafe, former Federal Communications Commission chair Reed Hundt described the speech as

[N]ot only a bold statement. It is also quite ingenious, in at least three dimensions: selection of target, legislative and regulatory implications, financial possibilities.

What attracted him was not just the vision, but the practicality. Gore chose to focus on things that are practical and achievable. Switching the entire automobile fleet to plug-in electric cars would be a wonderful achievement, but it won't come in a decade and it won't come without social costs. And when it comes down to it, switching to a plug-in electric automobile fleet depends on manufacturers to build them and consumers to buy them. While there are a lot of areas where government regulations can be effective in that arena (seat belts, for one, drunk driving laws for another, unleaded gas for a third), people buy cars and keep them on the road for a variety of reasons.

Electricity generation, on the other hand, is heavily regulated. And it's a public utility - there's far less room for personal choice. Over the next decade a large proportion of power plants need to be replaced.

Once again, it begs a gut-wrenching comparison with Bush. Bush keeps talking about magic wands and tax cuts, and his only idea of a "solution" is additional drilling - or rather, additional leases. Bush who set a vision ("invade Iraq") without any vision for how to achieve his aim. It's a great lesson in contrasts...