THE FUTURE OF ENERGY

Don’t Count On Magic

The world's most prominent environmentalist on carbon taxes, clean coal and the dangers of illusion.

Cristina Quicler / AFP-Getty Images
Al Gore during an October speech on climate change
 
Sponsored by
 
 

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

Separate multiple addresses with commas

 

Former Vice President Al Gore—now a Nobel Prize winner and the world's most prominent environmentalist—isn't looking for another job in Washington. But his eloquent warnings about the dangers of global climate change have obviously helped shape the priorities of the incoming Obama administration. Gore sat down with NEWSWEEK's Fareed Zakaria recently to talk about a bailout for Detroit, the greening of China and the elusive promise of "clean coal." Excerpts:

ZAKARIA: Would you bail out the carmakers?
GORE:
Whatever assistance might be forthcoming should be focused on speeding the changes that are absolutely essential to ensure that our companies are competitive in the global marketplace. When I was vice president, I initiated a program called the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles. The federal government invested over a billion dollars in partnership with the Big Three to focus on the accelerated development of advanced high-efficiency vehicles. But as soon as they felt they were off the hook at the end of 2000, they pulled the plug and walked away.

How would you do it? Would you provide loans but force the automakers to raise fuel efficiency or speed up hybrid production?
I think the whole industry should be transformed. It's really tragic that General Motors, for example, allowed Toyota to get a seven-year head start on the hybrid drivetrain in the Prius. I personally believe that the U.S. auto fleet should make a transition as quickly as possible toward plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.

Oil prices have dropped to $50 a barrel. Are we back to the old cycle—oil gets cheaper, and demand for alternative energy dies?
I don't think we're going to fall for it this time. I was very impressed with the language used by president-elect Barack Obama in his "60 Minutes" interview. He said, This is our pattern: We go from shock to trance. After the Arab OPEC oil embargo of '73, and then the OPEC crisis of '79, when prices went up, we had this feeling of urgency. Then when the price goes back down, it dissipates quickly. We cannot allow ourselves to be vulnerable to that anymore.

You tried to raise the gasoline tax when you were vice president.
When I came in as vice president in 1993, I proposed a very large CO2 tax that would be offset completely by reductions in payroll taxes and an increase in the earned income tax credit. In terms of the total [government] revenue raised, it would be neutral. It wasn't a tax increase. But it would send a price signal that would help us get off our dependence on oil. It passed one house of Congress and then narrowly failed by one vote in the other house. It ended up, unfortunately, being only a small increase in the gasoline tax, which just made people mad and didn't really have any impact on the problem.

Should we try it again despite the economic downturn?
I don't think that's likely to happen, but that's my preferred alternative.

Discuss

Sponsored by

Member Comments

  • Posted By: amnoel @ 01/23/2009 9:27:51 PM

    Yes there is clean coal. Please look at the New earth .com

  • Posted By: libertyman @ 01/02/2009 11:20:15 AM

    man made global warming is a farce intended to usher in marxism(democrat party)..remember the freon hoax??? junk science and liberlism will destroy my country.

  • Posted By: jarcher1 @ 12/29/2008 8:09:36 PM

    I'm impressed I must say Floridave. Yes, most emphatically they are ultimately both matters of faith, although the scientific community usually shrinks back from admitting that idea that humans can know reality through observation and reason is as much a faith proposition as anything the world's religions offer. That's why I'm just as adamantly opposed to the declarations of scientists like Richard Dawkins and John Wheeler when they declare God nonexistent. They are just as dishonest in this as anything I've laid at the feet of "Creation scientists" in the thread. They lend their standing in the scientific community to give an aura of authority to statements that fall completely outside the abilities of science to decide.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse