How About A Pickens/Gore/MoveOn Alliance?

I've posted this elsewhere, too. But I think it's worth repeating. Earlier today, I received an email from the folks at MoveOn.org calling attention to Al Gore's vision for America to produce "100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources within 10 years."

Gore, like T. Boone Pickens, points to our disproportionate dependence on carbon-based fuels as the common thread linking our economic, environmental and national security crises. He notes that "enough wind power blows through the Midwest corridor every day to...meet 100 percent of US electricity demand," and also emphasizes the value of harnessing energy in our solar corridor.

It would seem that Pickens and Gore have a common position on energy. And it's a position that isn't gaining enough traction in the media. MoveOn lamented that Gore's speech was mostly ignored and pleaded with members to help spread the word.

I cannot help but think: Why not work together?

Both camps have interests that are fundamentally the same. Pickens and Gore want an energy policy that achieves a significant reduction in our reliance on foreign oil while moving us solidly in the direction of clean and renewable power. If this is to become something of a national mission, it would certainly help for the Pickens Plan to have wide-ranging bipartisan support. What better way to establish this than an alliance with Al Gore and MoveOn?

Moreover, there's the additional benefit of gaining access to MoveOn's substantial mailing list.

Just a thought.

Tags: activism, alliances, bipartisan, pickens, plan

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Leon D'Souza on July 19, 2008 at 6:39pm: Larry, I'm not sure you can circumvent partisanship entirely when the process of enacting an energy policy is certain to be intensely partisan. Better to build alliances across the political divide. All this talk of nonpartisanship, frankly, is pure fantasy.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Leon D'Souza on July 19, 2008 at 6:51pm: Necessary, but ultimately far-fetched. Just look at the upheaval generated by this posting! Do you honestly believe the issue can escape the clutches of partisan politics before getting attention in Washington?; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Leon D'Souza on July 19, 2008 at 7:37pm: Very well, then. Perhaps we ought to expand the scope of the alliance to include independents representing divergent political persuasions. I have endorsed this in my response to a previous comment. My only purpose is to give the Plan the unmistakable sheen of bipartisan approval.

This is about building a national consensus.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Bill on July 19, 2008 at 8:29pm: Leon, thanks for initiating this discussion. I think you are spot on. Non-partisan/bi-partisan organizations usually have a high profile politician from both parties, and Al Gore would be the perfect supporter from the left. Then you would need to get someone from the right to balance it out- if Boone wants to stay out of "politics". Obviously he is drumming up support for a bill he will push Congress to pass next year after the new President is sworn in. This is my first time to visit his site, and I am still clueless about exactly what will be in this bill he wants to get passed. What does Boone need from the government? He is already building a huge windfarm without government help as far as I know, and thinks it will be cost competitive with coal. Seems like a natural for liberal support, the Sierra Club appears to already support him. BTW I voted for both Reagan and HW Bush, but am now a firm Obama supporter. GWB has pushed me as far left as I've ever been in my life.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Leon D'Souza on July 20, 2008 at 6:06am: Bill,

I found more than a small measure of humor in your reference to the president's bungling. To answer your question about what Boone might possibly need from the government, allow me to suggest that his overall plan is too ambitious for one man to orchestrate single-handedly.

I believe that in making his case, Boone is attempting to define a workable policy to be encouraged from Washington with appropriate incentives to spur additional investment. It's not just about the Pampa Wind Project. He's trying to build a broad consensus on the value of scaling back our dependence on carbon-based fuels. Quite like Gore, he has become a spokesman for achievable change.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Bill on July 20, 2008 at 10:51am: Leon, Al Gore was asked about Pickens' Plan on Meet the Press this morning. Watch clips of the interview here
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/

Gore puts the emphasis on climate change. Watch his recent speech here
http://www.wecansolveit.org/
We can solve It.. that is the climate crisis, not the massive oil trade deficit. This is poison to the right wing, as evidenced by so many posts here by folks who don't believe in global warming caused by mankind.

Pickens on the other hand puts the crisis in economic rather than environmental terms- music to the ears to Bubbas tired of paying so much to fill up their pickups and SUVs but could give a hoot about the environment.

They have a couple of differences- Pickens is fine with more drilling although he thinks it will be a drop in the bucket towards solving the crisis. Gore agrees it's a drop in the bucket and does not want more areas opened up to drilling. Pickens wants cars converted to natural gas as a transition towards renewably powered cars. Gore wants to skip that and transition cars to electric power (which can be wind/solar/geothermal generated) right away.

Then you have the special interests- the oil and coal lobbies and the utilities who have a lot invested in coal fired power plants. I see them trying to drop amendments into bills designed to facilitate the transition to wind power- say to permit more drilling or delay capturing the carbon emissions from coal-fired plants. Hopefully they don't poison the process and create gridlock. Hopefully Pickens and Gore can compromise and form a coalition to get something passed over the dead bodies of the vested interests in old technologies who stand to lose. Hopefully this won't turn into a long-term disaster like health care has.

In the end wind and solar may just happen on their own if and when they are truly less expensive than oil and coal. Maybe that day is coming sooner than we think. Hopefully in time to save the planet too.

Permalink Reply by patrick on July 20, 2008 at 6:13am: Successful Non-partisan/bi-partisan organizations usually have a high profile politician from both parties, who are willing to listen and debate the issue. Al Gore refuses to accept any scientific evidence, counter proposals and will doom any intelligent "meeting of the minds". In addition, he is a fat pig and GOD Willing, will soon die from a heart attack.

Boone wants to sit down with the logical candiates (BHO & McCain) to discuss their specific energy plans and his idea to: Convert 22% of the natural gas going to generate electricity on the national Grid today and replacing it with wind power. That Natural gas would then be available to run cars displacing 38% of the imported foreign oil. That would leave $300,000,000 that goes to foreign countries today (daily) in US Hands. Our national wealth is slipping into our enemy's hands daily. This needs to stop.

His plan is using existing Natural Gas that is already in pipelines and ready for use. He is building windmills and wants a 10 year tax credit to be continued (or made permanent). He needs the national grid to be built to take the wind created energy and place it on the national grid.

The congress is clueless and our leaders (Bush, Polosi, Reid) have all failed us. Gore when in office as VP FAILED us because the congress passed drilling in ANWR in 1996 but he convinced CLINTON to veto it. That oil would be flowing in our gas tanks today (12 years later) if CLINTON - GORE really cared about "We the People".

What does Boone need from the government? Leaders in office today, to emerge to discuss specific details of a total energy plan that includes everything.

PS: Why do the eco-terrorists not burn his (GOREs) mansions, limos, jet planes and show they are not hippocrites?; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Leon D'Souza on July 20, 2008 at 10:58am: Patrick,

Would you perhaps be more amenable to discussing an Obama/Pickens alliance? If indeed your gripes aren't rooted in brazen partisanship, would my alternative be acceptable?

Permalink Reply by Gerry Phibbs on July 20, 2008 at 5:15am: Hi Leon,

Boy, do you know how to set off an intense flame fest! Somehow we're going to have to find a way to keep you the hell away from all of that natural gas once it becomes "available"! (grin)

I don't know that MoveOn.org would really welcome any co-mingling of affiliations. Certainly some of their agenda dovetails with the Pickens' plan. But then again, much of it does not.

Somehow, I figured if I can overlook the fact that Pickens (by his own admission) donated some 6 million dollars to air 9 of those dastardly anti-Kerry "Swift Boat" ads, similar forgiveness might be afforded to us liberals. If I can get behind Pickens' plan, even though the man is a dyed in the wool Republican, I hoped that many of the conservatives who support the Pickens' plan might overlook some of us who hail from the left side of the country, and the progressive side of the social spectrum. This thread pretty well disproved that idea! (whew!)

But, let's also allow that while MoveOn is a political entity, this Pickens' plan is (at its root) primarily a private enterprise proposal. Nowhere have I heard or read that Pickens is asking for any governmental or private investments. His organization certainly has the funding to back this proposal, and make no mistakes; it will be a "for profit" enterprise. Pickens will make significant financial investments, but also stands to get substantial financial returns. All of this public input, and frenzy may well help him to get the legislation passed that will enable the distribution of the energy and of course, the producer tax credits. You know, I'm all in favor of that. Altruism and "green" thinking, hasn't yet really gotten anything like this project off the ground, so I'm all in favor of Pickens' capitalism pushing things along!

So, let's allow that while this "plan" has a great many political aspects to it, it is more in the domain of private business enterprise, and as such rather needs to remain apolitical in its associations. MoveOn will generate quite enough wind energy in this election year, as will the WeCanSolveit.org folks, along with the DNC, the RNC, the local legislatures, Congress, the two (or more) Presidential candidates, and so forth. Ah, if only we could harness THAT energy, we'd be more than halfway there! (smile)

Peace -Gerry; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Leon D'Souza on July 20, 2008 at 6:11am: Gerry,

Thank you for your encouraging note. To the point about Boone's ambitions, I have many writing in to point out that the Pickens Plan is a private enterprise solution, and therefore a project with little political relevance or function. I must respectfully disagree. In listening to the man describe his vision, I hear him talking audaciously about a corridor from Texas to the Canadian border. That's hardly the sort of endeavor one entrepreneur can be expected to wrestle single-handedly. In fact, Boone has said in interviews that he would like to see other investors follow his lead.

To achieve this on a massive scale, there will have to be some degree of government involvement. We will need a policy that provides incentives to restructure our energy economy while nudging us firmly in the direction of clean and renewable power. Policymaking is a political process. And that creates a need for bipartisan approval. Surely this is important enough that we ought to be able to get away from petty bickering and embrace a transcendent purpose.

If we cannot, I fear our country has been irredeemably polarized.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Gerry Phibbs on July 20, 2008 at 6:43am: Hi Leon,

Well, to begin.. I'm not entirely convinced that our country isn't already polarized beyond redemption. The quick and negative comments to this thread do rather support that opinion, but I'll chalk it up to a "leftist blood in the water" kind of reaction. (grin)

Oh and I'll agree with you, that this entire energy redirection, refocusing, rethinking process, is certainly within the purview of the various governmental agencies, thus making it quite political by nature.

Yet, at the moment, we've been asked to get on board to support Pickens' rather singular enterprise. As he's already admitted, he wants not to just create and own a wind energy facility, but he intends that it be the largest in the world, and it will surely a "for-profit" enterprise.

So, let's try to hold up the necessary orange snow fences, so that we can try to keep some of these issues a bit better defined. Here.. you grab this.. and I'll drag my end over.. there. (grin) Oops.. some of that over there, slopped up over here!

While I do support the Pickens' plan, I'm hardly so naive as to believe that it's some sort of altruistic venture, to rescue the nation from the grips of foreign oil. Nope, Pickens fully intends to sell the electricity to various utilities. Further, he also intends to sell considerable amounts of natural gas, as well as LNG and CNG conversion kits, cars, and who knows? T shirts have got to be in the offing real soon!

I do believe that in launching this venture, Mr. Pickens has surely done a great deal to foment legitimate discussion and education about our energy policies (or lack thereof). Still and all, I think we all need to keep this process very well considered and defined. Mr. Pickens and his wind farm can and should elect to remain non-partisan and therefore apolitical, for they will surely need to work with both parties, and all sides of the body politic to get the necessary legislation, rights of way, tax credits and incentives, and so forth passed into law.

Yet, the discussion and policy reformations are certainly quite politically charged, and I can happily accept my progressive (okay, sorta radical) positions over here on the left, and look to the reactionary and conservative positions for more of a "swift boat" sort of engagement!

Peace -Gerry; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by David on July 20, 2008 at 6:49am: Recently in Michigan a very modest energy plan failed to pass. Partisan bickering and money from special interests stopped a plan to achieve %10 of electricity from renewable's. It also guaranteed the power generated from alternate sources would be purchased by the electric company's. Michigan may have the highest potential for wind energy the entire coast of Lake Superior.
This State is not going to do it on it's own. Upgrade of the grid nation wide is the only real solution.; ▶ Reply to This