Science writer/blogger Chris Mooney at The Intersection and others came up with a good idea that I signed on to — a statement supported by many distinguished scientists, and a bunch of semi-distinguished bloggers:

Given the many urgent scientific and technological challenges facing America and the rest of the world, the increasing need for accurate scientific information in political decision making, and the vital role scientific innovation plays in spurring economic growth and competitiveness, we, the undersigned, call for a public debate in which the U.S. presidential candidates share their views on the issues of The Environment, Medicine and Health, and Science and Technology Policy.

For more information, visit the ScienceDebate2008 website. You can also click the button pledging your support. It is a good idea … but something leads me to believe that one side of the political spectrum isn’t that interested in discussing science rationally.

[JR: Kudos to Gore for the well-deserved Prize and a terrific speech.]

Also available online. A full video will be posted on Gore’s site later today, but you can view an excerpt here:

[flv http://video.thinkprogress.org/2007/12/gorenobel.320.240.flv]

Speech by Al Gore on the Acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize
December 10, 2007
Oslo, Norway

Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, Honorable members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, Excellencies, Ladies and gentlemen.

I have a purpose here today. It is a purpose I have tried to serve for many years. I have prayed that God would show me a way to accomplish it.

Sometimes, without warning, the future knocks on our door with a precious and painful vision of what might be. One hundred and nineteen years ago, a wealthy inventor read his own obituary, mistakenly published years before his death. Wrongly believing the inventor had just died, a newspaper printed a harsh judgment of his life’s work, unfairly labeling him “The Merchant of Death” because of his invention — dynamite. Shaken by this condemnation, the inventor made a fateful choice to serve the cause of peace.

Seven years later, Alfred Nobel created this prize and the others that bear his name.

Seven years ago tomorrow, I read my own political obituary in a judgment that seemed to me harsh and mistaken — if not premature. But that unwelcome verdict also brought a precious if painful gift: an opportunity to search for fresh new ways to serve my purpose.

Unexpectedly, that quest has brought me here. Even though I fear my words cannot match this moment, I pray what I am feeling in my heart will be communicated clearly enough that those who hear me will say, “We must act.”

The distinguished scientists with whom it is the greatest honor of my life to share this award have laid before us a choice between two different futures — a choice that to my ears echoes the words of an ancient prophet: “Life or death, blessings or curses. Therefore, choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live.”

Read more

My I.T. person says he has fixed the annoying problem whereby sometimes the info of the last commenter stays on the screen, which many of you have complained about.

PLEASE let me know if in fact the problem re-occurs.

If you don’t know what I’m talking about, ignore this message and have a great holiday!

As the new energy bill hit the Senate with a thud last week, we had to ask: Is it really so easy to stall vital public policy with tired old scare tactics? Last Friday, the answer was “yes”.

One of the potholes the bill has encountered is its $13 billion take-back from Big Oil. The bill proposes to repeal tax breaks given to the industry by the Republican – controlled Congress in 2004-2005 and to close some tax loopholes that allow oil companies to game the system when they report income from foreign oil and gas extraction.

Predictably, the oil industry and the White House complained about a tax increase and warned of higher prices at the pump — two time-tested themes to trigger knee-jerk opposition from the public.

Let’s break it down.

First, rolling back a tax break isn’t the same as raising a tax. It’s the equivalent of having the oil industry return a gift it doesn’t need and doesn’t deserve, rather than picking its pockets.

Second, while oil companies might use the roll-back as an excuse to raise gasoline prices, it wouldn’t be the fault of the energy bill. The U.S. Energy Information Administration says that subsidies in this range are “too small to have a significant effect on the overall level of energy prices and consumption in the United States.” In other words, subsidies at this scale don’t lower energy prices and their repeal won’t raise them.

Read more

Draft letters from NASA’s James Hansen to Prime Minister Brown and Chancellor Merkel about coal are here. Bottom line:

(1) Phase-out of coal use that does not capture CO2. This is 80% of the solution, creating a situation in which CO2 emissions are declining sharply. (Coal use will also be affected by the second essential action. Indeed, it is likely that much of the coal will be left in the ground, as incentives spark innovations and positive feedbacks, accelerating progress to the cleaner world beyond fossil fuels.)

(2) A gradually but continually rising price on carbon emissions. This will assure that, as oil production inevitably declines, humanity does not behave as a desperate addict, seeking every last drop of oil in the most extreme pristine environments and squeezing oil from tar shale, coal, and other high-carbon sources that would assure destruction of our climate and most species on the planet. Recognition by industry of a continually rising carbon price (and elimination of fossil fuel subsidies) would drive innovations in energy efficiency, renewable energies, and other energy sources that do not produce greenhouse gases.

These are the two fundamental actions that must occur if we are to roll back the net climate forcing and avoid the dangerous climate tipping points, with their foreseeable consequences. Both of these actions are essential.

We can make a long list of supplementary actions that will be needed to avoid hardships and minimize dislocations as we phase into a cleaner world beyond fossil fuels. However, the two essential actions must be given priority and governments must explain the situation to the public.

Supplementary actions include improved efficiency standards on buildings, vehicles, appliances, etc. Rules must be changed so that utilities profit by encouraging efficiency, rather than selling more energy. But governments must recognize these actions as being supplementary to the essential actions dictated by the physics of the carbon cycle, specifically the requirement to constrain release of CO2 to the air from the large carbon reservoirs.

Here! Here!

Hansen welcomes comments.