http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid192.php

Ultralight Construction
Low-Drag Design
Hybrid-Electric Drive
Efficient Accessories

“. . . vehicles that are 3–5 fold more fuel-efficient than comparable current models, yet are as good or better in every other respect.”

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.

When we have captured the first 100% of our daily requirement the additonal 599900% (hope the percentage is right) cost for further capture will have dropped significantly as well as the emergence of other methods for obtaining energy and or energy equivalents (like potentially extreme changes in the built environment using super-strong super-light nanotechnology and or civilizations based on much more intelligent funner greener existences).

It seems that the really cool thing is if we are smart we will all benefit with minimal or no hardship and have plenty to look forward to.

If some kid does not want to part with his toy truck we’ll just have to humor him after its taken away and until he grows up a little bit.

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.

Transportation accounts for about a third of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S., about the same as electricity generation. It accounts for two thirds of oil use in America. Like it or not, it is a big part of the big picture.

And again, Gore’s idea that we are “connecting dots” and not looking at problems in isolation, pretty much leads to rethinking transportation and land use policy (not just “getting people to ride bikes”), because of related issues: public health, public safety, economics, equity, and community cohesion.

I like his proposal, but it is just one of many strategies that will be required to reduce our emissions beyond 30%.

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.

The bicycle is the rational answer to much of today’s transportation needs.
24% of all trips are made within a mile of the home, 40% of all trips are made within two miles of the home, and 50% of the working population commutes five miles or less to work. Source:
http://www.1world2wheels.org/get-involved

I think the USA can switch over to 100% renewable electricity in ten years. But having people make more rational transportation choices in their daily lives will take longer.

#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.

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.

So what does that mean for transportation? A huge shift toward things that can be propelled with electricity and human power and away from the car.

Electric cars have proven to be difficult. The New York City Subway and various passenger rail lines around the region have been powered by electricity continuously for more than a century. That electricity may not be from clean sources, but it could be.

Electricity generation generates almost twice as much greenhouse gases in the U.S. as driving. And as G&J pointed out, the electric sector is way more conducive to quick, painless and out-of-sight (almost, anyway) decarbonization. Even the Kheel Plan, with a fourfold higher congestion toll than PlaNYC ($16 instead of $8, charged during twice as many hours), and offering free buses and subways, would have only eliminated a measly 2% of NYC’s CO2 emissions. Gore’s electric focus is the right one for moving the U.S. from last to first in getting off carbon ASAP.

Moreover, Gore’s full-throated endorsement, yet again, of a carbon tax (“We should tax what we burn, not what we earn. This is the single most important policy change we can make.”), is proof that he doesn’t shy from cutting-edge advocacy.

It’s true that Gore has never “gotten” bike/walk. The “bicycle” word was (in)famously missing from his “Earth in the Balance” book, and when he went to China in 1997 (?) he unfortunately disregarded my plea — rendered in a truly gorgeous letter — to ride a bike in Beijing to show support for the dignity and viability of urban cycling there.

OK, no one’s perfect. Ted Williams never stole 50 bases. Mark Twain didn’t write poetry. Gore’s climate advocacy is at least in their class. We should honor it.

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.
That vision is a little shocking when you revisit the fact that New Yorkers take in 1/3 the energy of the average person in this country. How much easier would this task be if you brought the average American’s consumption down to just twice the average New Yorkers’?
Does he really expect electric cars to be some sort of solution within ten years. GM is working like mad to what was more or less outlined as a failure to produce a viable electric car by 2010. Detroit needs retooling for electric Buses, trolley cars and train engines – not cars.
I love Gore’s idea. But the solution can be partly solved with a change in living habits that it even seems people are hungry for. Downtown’s of cities are coming back, Amtrak and mass transit were getting more use even before the crisis levels, and sprawl and it’s induced traffic have been taken to the extreme. Somebody who people might listen to, and that includes Gore, needs to say that in order to reduce our energy cosumption, we have to live more efficiently, and the way to do that is to live in a city.

#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.

I, on the other hand, am fit enough to walk and use subways and buses, and do. I am a licensed driver and haven’t driven since 1979 because, among other reasons, I consider it ethically reprehensible to own or drive a car. But not everyone I know agrees with that or is physically able to get around that way.

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.

It’s not clear why anyone would disparage Gore’s proposal

.

And yet, they do: RedState: Al Gore: just plain nuts.

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.

Environment
Encouraging walking
Pedestrian safety
His own family’s life and safety