Al Gore is testifying on Capitol Hill twice on Wednesday–before John Dingell’s House Energy and Commerce Committee and Barbara Boxer’s Senate Environment Committee. According to the Drudge Report (link may only be was temporary),

Proposed questions for Gore, which are circulating behind-the-scenes, have been obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT — question that could lead Gore scrambling for answers!

Here are the questions, which would not cause a fifth grader to scramble, but I am flattered to make the list:

Mr. Gore: You have said several times that we have 10 years to act to stave off global warming. Was that 10 years from the first time you said that or 10 years from now? We just wanted to get a firm date from you that we can hold you to.

ANSWER: We have 10 years from NOW to start acting, if we are to avoid catastrophic warming. For two decades I have been saying we need to act, but it is only because we have delayed for so long that we now have only 10 years to start acting.

Mr. Gore: Joseph Romm, the executive director for the Center for Energy and Climate Solutions, has said we must build 700 large nuclear plants to stave off climate change. Where do you stand on the need for nuclear energy?

ANSWER: If you have read Dr. Romm’s book, Hell and High Water, then you know he writes:

“The nation needs to put in place mandatory carbon dioxide controls. If a significant price for carbon makes nuclear attractive to utilities and financiers, and if the plants meet the necessary safety and environmental codes, and if the country can finally agree on a place to put the nuclear waste, then new nuclear plants may well make a significant contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in this country.”

Compared to most Americans, Californians emit under one third the carbon dioxide emissions per kilowatt-hour consumed while paying the same annual bill, and they do so while getting a lower share of their power from nuclear energy. “That’s why federal electricity policy should focus on establishing a price for carbon dioxide, promoting energy-efficiency, cogeneration, and renewable energy, and accelerating coal gasification together with carbon capture and storage. Those strategies can take us as far as we need to go on emissions reductions in the utility sector for the next few decades.”

That view seems entirely reasonable to me.

Mr. Gore: Do you think the earth is significantly overpopulated and that is a major contributor to your view of climate change. (If yes, what do you think is a sustainable population for the planet?)

ANSWER: No.

Mr. Gore: How can you continue to claim that global warming on Earth is primarily caused by mankind when other planets (Mars, Jupiter and Pluto) with no confirmed life forms and certainly no man-made industrial greenhouse gas emissions also show signs of global warming? Wouldn’t it make more sense that the sun is responsible for warming since it is the common denominator?

The question is not factually based.

Read more

Climate change is a likely contributer to phenomenal megafires that are “impossible to extinguish short of rain or divine intervention” and that have only really appeared in the last few years.

While they have burned all over the globe, Australia has paid particular attention. For years, Australia has experienced severe drought that has forced them to rethink their water management and policies (or lack thereof) addressing global warming. Now, they have to rethink how they have historically handled wildfires.

One official fears that may mean breaking policies intended to protect the forests. Certainly, as global warming intensifies and impacts more, environmental solutions will have to get creative.

Take, for example, the latest from NOAA: Incident Meteorologists who have traveled to support the Australian Bureau of Meteorology fight against the wildfires, which have killed at least a dozen people and hundreds of farm animals.

It appears as though we are willing to forge an international partnership to treat the symptoms. Now we must do the same to treat the disease.