“This is a generational moment. A moment when we decide our own path and our collective fate. I’m asking you – each of you – to join me and build this future.”

I hope he is speaking to those under 40, or at least under 50. Because Al’s generation has already failed the same challenge, laid out by President Carter in his moral equivalent of war speech over 30 years ago, on April 18th 2007.

“Tonight I want to have an unpleasant talk with you about a problem unprecedented in our history. With the exception of preventing war, this is the greatest challenge our country will face during our lifetimes. The energy crisis has not yet overwhelmed us, but it will if we do not act quickly.”

“It is a problem we will not solve in the next few years, and it is likely to get progressively worse through the rest of this century.”

“We must not be selfish or timid if we hope to have a decent world for our children and grandchildren.”

“We simply must balance our demand for energy with our rapidly shrinking resources. By acting now, we can control our future instead of letting the future control us.”

“Two days from now, I will present my energy proposals to the Congress. Its members will be my partners and they have already given me a great deal of valuable advice. Many of these proposals will be unpopular. Some will cause you to put up with inconveniences and to make sacrifices.”

“The most important thing about these proposals is that the alternative may be a national catastrophe. Further delay can affect our strength and our power as a nation.”

“Our decision about energy will test the character of the American people and the ability of the President and the Congress to govern. This difficult effort will be the ‘moral equivalent of war’ — except that we will be uniting our efforts to build and not destroy.”

On a more specific level- anybody notice that that speech (Gore’s) was completely devoid of the words transit, train, bike, and I think Urban?

A search of wecansolveit.org also does not reveal any smart growth or livable streets solutions to climate change either – but does feature a prominent pic of a gas pump.

This train is definitely leaving the station…

-GR

Thinking the same thing, GR. Particularly how depressing it is that he’s giving a speech about reducing our carbon consumption, and then mentions the Interstate system as one of our country’s great achievements.

He states a goal of having zero-carbon fuel equivalent to $1 per gallon gas. While that may solve the environmental issues of our driving obsession, it does nothing to solve the congestion and land use issues that our suburban growth patterns have given us. So we’ll still have nightmare commutes and cities that aren’t walkable or bikeable, but hey at least we can have the windows open!

In cities like Portland or NYC it’s easy to think that more people should switch to bikes or transit. But Gore is a smart politician. For over 90% of this country, that’s not an option and won’t be soon. I’m sure he would say he’s in favor of more investment in and use of public transport and non-motorized transportation, but imagine if political fallout if he talked for even a moment about bikes. I can hear Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity right now: “Gas is $5, your commute is 25 miles each way, and Al Gore wants you to ride your bike.”

I think Al Gore is smart enough to know how to approach this issue. He’s choosing to focus on changing or retrofitting how we get our energy. Give the guy a break.

The word “walking” was also missing from Gore’s speech. If his stated program would help, imagine how much more effective it would be if you throw in walkable communities and transit. But I think d’s reading of the situation is the correct one. I bought Gore’s DVD and showed it to family members precisely because his message is reasonable enough and carefully crafted enough to really change people’s minds.

#11, Jim, Correction: The world’s great cities’ transportation and transit systems are centralized where it’s easy pickings for extensive car-less improvements with immediate benefit.

gecko,

Yes, improvements with immediate benefit, but not elimination of greenhouse gas emissions. To eliminate greenhouse gas emissions from transportation, you need to stop individuals from buying or driving vehicles operated by internal combustion engines. There are very few countries where that can be done centrally.

“I bought Gore’s DVD and showed it to family members precisely because his message is reasonable enough and carefully crafted enough to really change people’s minds.”

Really?! We can’t be reasonable and use the words like “bicycle”, “walk”, or “transit”?

Do you think Gore’s “reasonable” world continues to be what we have now, and growth patterns like we have now, just with different types of engines and road materials?

It just strikes me that if we can about livable streets and have a clear vision for how to get there, we have to be able to admit to what the vision is. For me, that vision includes those unreasonable words. If we can’t say it, we certainly won’t get it.

ps: for the record, I am not “GR”. I always post as “Greg Raisman”. I do, however, think GR is on to something.

#14, Jim Thought it was mentioned elsewhere that cars should be eliminated from the world’s great cities. This would show how extraneous they are. Cities could showcase some really great ways to get around like they showcase so many other great things.

#15 vnm, On leaving NYC nothing makes sense or is clear. (Well sort of.) Sorry for the lack of clarification.

#17 Mark Walker, You are absolutely correct but, relatively minor adaptations to bicycle and human-scale transport would be a lot easier for your 82-year old mother to use than transit (maybe, not unlike an electric wheelchair); and, than most people realize including alternate transportation advocates and environmentalists, which is why they haven’t been advocating them. It’s kind of embarrassing really. Too many people really love bicycles and they are quite nice but it is time to move beyond them for those who need something more practical.

Any transportation revolution — cheaper, better, easier, faster, safer, etc.: that kind of stuff — would likely cannibalize the auto industry and if there are public figures that understand this you can’t blame them for proceeding with caution because most likely the mechanics and outcomes are not clear where an excess of $40 billion in annual salaries are at stake and an industry costs in excess of $300 billion annually; probably in the $trillions in indirect costs embedded in an economic fabric (insurance, medical, banking, advertising, etc.) though probably at a net loss and best removed.

Vnm, I think Rlb’s evidence counts against your argument:

When he starts bringing up 1 dollar equivalent gallons of gasoline, it sure seems like it. It also seems like it when he brings up Detroit back on top making electric cars. The vision he outlines in that speech is not one of reducing energy consumption, but one of making energy consumption less costly environmentally and maybe on the wallet.

This kind of talk is the same I’ve been hearing for years from the “Subaru wagon liberal” crowd. They want to be independent of foreign oil and they want a reduction in greenhouse gases, but they won’t consider any way of accomplishing it that would involve giving up their llama farm and moving back to Greenwich Village.

I don’t think that Gore is censoring himself the way he was in 2000. I think what we’re seeing is the real Gore, and I don’t think that Gore is ready to give up his mansion and his cars. Until then he won’t make the connection between car dependence and his son’s safety, and he won’t mention transit, walking or cycling. Maybe he never will, but we’ve got a Presidential candidate who will and he’s got Gore’s support, and that’s what really matters.

I guess the two stumbling blocks for me were:

#1 By repeatedly citing the issue of high oil prices, but focusing almost exclusively on renewables for electricity generation, there was a bit of trading apples for oranges. A relatively small proportion of our electricity is generated from oil (especially from a wesetern perspective where we rely mostly on coal and natural gas).

#2 Mentioned by another commenter, but I’ll repeat it. If reducing dependence on foreign carbon-based fuels connects the dots of the economy, national security and climate disruption, then why doesn’t reducing automobile dependence connect all those dots with the dots of public safety, health, protection of farm, timber and wildlands, community cohesion, and the economy yet again (with regard to all the cars we import or manufacture for foreign corporations)?

I guess we have a lot of work to do if Al Gore himself honestly doesn’t get this stuff.

Al Gore gets this stuff, but his focus is on getting political leaders, business leaders, and world governments to change. Getting people to ride bikes is good, but it’s not the drastic change he’s advocating. He didn’t mention canvas shopping bags either. Do people have a problem with that? What about composting? Recycling? Again…look at the big picture. It’s easy on a bike-centric site in an urban environment to think he should have mentioned bikes, but I guarantee you their lobbing the same criticisms at him on the canvas shopping bag blog.

I think his recent focus has been on big change from the top down, recognizing that there is already a lot of bottom up change happening all over. Seems like his goal is to get the people at the top to start making the decisions the people on the bottom are waiting for.

It’s ridiculous to say he doesn’t get this stuff. He gets it. Again, his strategy is now to get government to take action. He’s said as much, mentioning that he hopes he can provide the space in which Obama or McCain can make the necessary big decisions when either one assumes office.

There is a great deal of valuable perspective here it seems, and this general topic area – Should livable streets and transit be a part of the broader anti-climate change movement – is a critical conversation to have. Various commenters make the entirely valid point(s) that electricity generation is low-hanging fruit, and therefore should be a priority. I recognize that, but see it as the scientific perspective. The political one is far more complex.

Gore laid out a political challenge, not a scientific one. And the in his omission of urban issues from the speech he made a political mistake that many of our leaders make on this issue of our energy consumption – he totally avoids any request of sacrifice or participation in this cause by the American public. And to me, one of the most obvious choices that we can make as members of that public is to ride the bus, or walk a little bit more, or maybe even live in a smaller home that uses less electricity. As it is, he is only asking us to wait until GM shows up with their affordable plug-in.

In his speech, he states:

“What could we do instead for the next 10 years? What should we do during the next 10 years? Some of our greatest accomplishments as a nation have resulted from commitments to reach a goal that fell well beyond the next election: the Marshall Plan, Social Security, the interstate highway system. But a political promise to do something 40 years from now is universally ignored because everyone knows that it’s meaningless. Ten years is about the maximum time that we as a nation can hold a steady aim and hit our target.”

Thats what tells me this primarily about political change. But in order for the public to really have some skin in the game, and to drive up the stakes – which is so critically important – they’re going to need to know what THEY can do, and how they can change their habits. Only after a bigger number of people can do that will those same people hold leaders accountable for anything remotely like a 10 year revolution, which is exactly what he is calling for.

On a fundamental level, if we’re going to get on top of this thing, I think reasonable people agree that we’re going to need to use less energy. Whether as a result of carbon taxes or personal choices, it will come down to less watts per capita. Technology advances alone won’t cut it. Until we level with people on that, we’ll never even approach the pace of change he asks for.

#29 GR (continued), As you’d alluded to it is starting to become apparent that Al Gore neglected one key issue. In ten (10) years it is highly likely that increasing numbers of automobiles, buses, and trucks will be electric greatly increasing demand making the fossil-free electric development effort that much more ambitious in such a short time.

One way to mitigate the demand would be to coincidently develop and broadly implement small light hybrid human-electric ruggedized vehicles suitable for transport and transit.

It’s still not clear that any real hardships would be incurred.