At the Environment and Public Works hearing this afternoon, Sen. Inhofe (R-OK) displayed an amazing lack of understanding about energy as he tried to get Gore to make a meaningless pledge. Now the EPW Minority web page repeats the inane charge:

Former Vice President Al Gore refused to take a “Personal Energy Ethics Pledge” today to consume no more energy than the average American household.

But why should Gore take such a pledge? Gore is a champion of greenhouse gas reductions, not energy reductions. Gore explained he buys 100% renewable power and is planning to build a solar power system. Thus the electricity Gore consumes in his Tennessee home does not contribute to global warming.

It is conservatives who mistakenly argue that the only way to meet emission reduction targets is by sharply reducing energy use. Conservatives make this argument to try to scare the public into opposing action on climate change. But Gore’s whole point is that smart energy use, including renewables, can allow us to grow the economy while fighting global warming.

Inhofe then introduced another red herring:

“There are hundreds of thousands of people who adore you and would follow your example by reducing their energy usage if you did. Don’t give us the run-around on carbon offsets or the gimmicks the wealthy do.”

But directly purchasing renewables is completely different from buying carbon offsets, and such purchases are not a gimmick for the wealthy–millions already do the same. Inhofe seems completely unaware of that fact. His entire attack on Gore was both inaccurate and shrill, a sharp contrast to Gore’s statesmanlike tour-de-force, truly a “triumphant return” for the former Representative and Senator.

Tomorrow Air America’s environmental program runs an interview with my comments on Gore’s tour-de-force on Capitol Hill. I will post a link when it is available online for those who don’t get the program on local radio.

The webcast of Al Gore’s joint House committee testimony this morning just ended, probably so that Gore can grab something to eat before he testifies in front of the Senate EPW committee this afternoon. Gore exuded intelligence this morning — he was beyond well-versed in the diplomatic, scientific, economic, environmental, political and moral issues at hand.

After also watching the treatment of James Hansen at yesterday’s House Oversight and Reform Committee hearing, I’m still grappling with how smeared Hansen was versus how well-received Gore was.

Complaints that science should not meddle in politics and that politics should not meddle in science commonly surround the global warming predicament. But we are witnessing a rare, sensitive, and urgent overlap in which both actors are equally critical. I realize that Gore is one of the politicians’ own and has held an executive title more prestigious than theirs, but I remain confounded at the demand for sound science yet the frankly childish treatment of Hansen.

I do not mean to erode the value of Gore or his testimony. I was truly celebrating the feeling that the Members were listening or at least appreciating Gore’s recommendations. To answer one of David Roberts’ preliminary questions, his policy suggestions were bold.

Gore encouraged an immediate freeze on carbon emissions (yes, it is that serious!) and a revenue neutral tax shift to discourage pollution (and encourage work). He also recommended that we enter the global conversation again and aggressively pull forward the 2012 start-date of Kyoto’s second phase to 2010, a date tailored to our domestic political circumstances. According to Rep. Inglis (R-S.C.), we need to do the right thing “even if nobody’s watching.”

Overall, Gore suggests a comprehensive package, including higher CAF‰ standards, a cap-and-trade system on the electricity grid, and a ban on new coal plants that cannot capture and sequester carbon dioxide.

As for the economics, Gore says its time to internalize the external, meaning incorporate the environmental and other costs of pollution into its market value. Citing Amory Levins, in terms of the economic costs, we’ve got the sign (+/-) wrong. We should view this as the greatest opportunity to profitably overhaul our way of life and our economy.

As for the politics, Gore encourages us to expand what is feasible, to think outside the box, to push our known boundaries because this problem is larger than what we have known and the sky is the limit.

Can’t wait for the EPW hearing.

Amy runs a blog for the conservative National Center for Public Policy Research. On my post answering Drudge’s questions to Gore, she writes:

Hilariously, three of the four answers the Climate Progress blog suggests duck firm answers to the question being asked.

But if you go back to my original post, you’ll be hard-pressed to know which three answers she is talking about. I don’t think the answer to any of the questions could be clearer. She herself cites only part of one answer in her post, the answer about nuclear energy:

“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….”

She then writes:

If, if, if, and “may well.” Why does the suggested answer contain four qualifers?

It contains four qualifiers because there are many reasons that nobody has ordered a new nuclear plant in this country for decades and we can’t just cram them down the throat of the public until and unless they make sense. [Gore's actual answer in the House hearing was shorter and sweeter -- nukes may play a role, but probably not a big role because they are so costly.] Amy then writes:

Wouldn’t 700 new nuclear plants reduce carbon dioxide emissions even if Congress refused (and wisely so!) to have Washington control the public’s carbon dioxide emissions?

She hasn’t read my book (and unwisely so!), and thus she doesn’t know that the 700 new nukes are built worldwide over 50 years. The part of my answer she cut out explains that the U.S. can cut emissions sharply without building new nukes. Apparently any answer other than “yes” or “no” constitutes ducking a question to Amy.

So who is Amy Ridenour and why is she so confused about Climate Change? Hilariously, I’ve answered the first question but ducked the second.