Al Gore Should Wait

Following the long and boring Academy Awards, many folks are renewing their efforts to get Al Gore to run for President again.

We have no idea whether Al is inclined to do so--we'd think he's having a lot more fun, and arguably doing more good, with his current gig.

But, if Gore is motivated to give it another try, he should wait. As they say in the movies (now that he's a sort of movie star) "wait 'til you see the whites of their eyes."

Conventional wisdom is that the '08 presidential race will be so expensive that a candidate has to get in now to be able to raise enough money. Indeed, the money race has already claimed Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack as a victim, and deterred others from entering.

That conventional wisdom doesn't apply to Al Gore (or to Newt Gingrich on the GOP side, either). If Gore decides to run, he'll be able to raise a boatload of money in short order.

Better off to wait as long as possible, which we think is probably until about September. During that period Hillary, Obama and Edwards will be clawing each other to death, to the point that none of them will be all that attractive come the end of summer. In fact, we're already getting pretty sick of them. Moreover, it looks like both the Democratic and Republican nominating races are going to devolve into three-way contests where no candidate has a decisive advantage.

Thus, the longer Gore can wait, the cleaner he'll look. In the meantime, he can take the high road, possibly even earning a Nobel Peace Prize along the way. He doesn't have to criticize any of the other Democratic candidates--indeed, he can praise them all. Then, when he does enter, it can be "for the good of the party."

In contrast, if Gore enters now, he'll soon get bogged down in sniping, especially with Hillary's crowd, about all kinds of issues besides global warming. His initial momentum will soon fade--just look what's happened to Obama. Come September, he'll be just another muddy Democrat in what could be a four-way race with no decisive leader (or, he could knock out Edwards--Gore is even cleaner than Edwards on Iraq, and we're not sure what else Edwards really has to offer besides a pretty face).

It's an interesting scenario historically. In 1960, Richard Nixon lost a squeaker to JFK--many Republicans claimed the race was stolen from Nixon in Chicago. Eight years later, he came back to win (during a very unpopular war) with a much more "checkered" past (couldn't resist) than Gore's is now. After LBJ bowed out in '68, the race was almost as wide open as this time around. Could history repeat itself 40 years later (without the subsequent downfall of Nixon, of course)?

Only time will tell. Gore can afford to wait.

Don't Conflate Energy Independence With Climate Change Policy

Now that the House Democrats have finished their largely symbolic first 100 hours agenda, Speaker Nancy Pelosi says one of the next key issues is "energy independence." According to Pelosi, "climate change is part of energy independence."

Wrong.

The converse might well be true, however: energy independence could well be a by-product of aggressive policies to reduce carbon emissions as a means of addressing global warming.

Here's the problem. "Energy independence" is a set of policies designed to wean America from its ever-growing dependence on foreign oil, and, to a lesser extent, imported natural gas. The goal of achieving energy independence is to enhance our national security, primarily by avoiding entanglements with the unstable and sometimes unsavory governments that control much of our foreign oil.

If we really want energy independence, we can pretty easily get it, albeit at a cost. The U.S. has ample coal reserves that can be tapped for generating electricity and transforming into liquid fuel. Likewise, U.S. corn production can increasingly be diverted into distillation of ethanol to run automobiles. We can also choose to open up drilling in environmentally sensitive areas of the Arctic and boost incentives to develop shale oil in the Rockies. We can also boost nuclear power. And, of course, we can expand our use of renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar and geothermal.

All these steps could reduce our use of foreign oil, which we use primarily because it is CHEAP compared to these other options.

Now, let's turn to global warming. If we want to reduce carbon emissions, we won't tap our vast coal reserves. Indeed, the first step we'd want to take is to replace coal-fired electric plants with almost anything else, since coal is the biggest carbon emitter of the major fuels. Similarly, we wouldn't want to open up vast new oil fields in Alaska or off our coasts since oil, too, is a major carbon emitter.

Ethanol production from corn is a closer question, but most scientists who've looked into it have concluded that corn-based ethanol is, at best, only slightly better from a carbon perspective than gasoline derived from oil. It might even be a bit worse.

Instead, we would concentrate our efforts on renewable fuels that are low in carbon emissions. Wind and solar energy are great--the only carbon emissions are those caused by the manufacture and construction of their components, which is relatively small. Wind, especially, is a great source of electricity and is already competitive with carbon fuels such as oil. Solar is more expensive, but spurring its widespread use with subsidies will help the industry produce next generation solar panels that are more efficient.

Neither wind nor solar, however, can be counted on for round the clock electricity generation, and large scale storage is not likely to be very economical or environmentally friendly. Accordingly, we need to also invest in new nuclear plants, which are as carbon friendly as wind. Those "environmentalists" who oppose all nuclear of any kind are unreasonable, and, in the end, making a huge negative environmental trade-off based more on fear than fact.

On the automotive front, we need to encourage development of cellulose based biofuels from plants such as switchgrass and cornstalks, and move away from corn-based ethanol. Cellulose biofuels should be 5-10 times more carbon friendly than corn. But that's just for the short run. In the long run, we need to move rapidly toward replacement of our existing automotive fleet with cars that are primarily electric--hybrids with an additional battery, which can achieve 70 mpg (of gasoline or biofuel).

Ultimately, we need to move to a hydrogen fuel cell fleet, a feat that is more difficult than most people think. One problem: today, most hydrogen in the U.S. is produced from natural gas, and thus emits carbon. Hydrogen can be produced by electrolysis of water, but that requires a lot of electricity. One solution--next generation nuclear electric plants, which operate at such high temperatures they can produce both electricity and hydrogen.

Eliminating oil and natural gas for home heating is also quite a challenge.

Of course, since virtually all our imported energy is in the form of oil and natural gas, switching to lower carbon sources of energy will have, as a side effect, promotion of energy independence.

Accordingly, Democrats should concentrate their policy changes on those that promote reduced carbon emissions. "Energy independence" as a goal unto itself will not do much to address global warming--indeed, it could make matters worse if we rely increasingly on our abundant coal.

Unfortunately, for political reasons--wanting to look strong on national defense, catering to farm belt corn interests, etc.--Democrats will probably continue to wrap themselves in the rhetoric of energy independence. Let's just hope they funnel the money to the more promising carbon neutral technologies.

Is Mark Warner Reconsidering?

Is Mark Warner reconsidering his decision not to run for President in '08? Perhaps. At a minimum, it appears he's still conflicted.

Yesterday, Warner had lunch in Charleston, SC with an impromptu gathering of local Democratic activists who were recruited at the last minute via email and phone. About 25 of Charleston's most influential Dems attended, including legendary Mayor Joe Riley.

Warner indicated that his decision not to run was based on his feeling that he wasn't "1000 percent sure" he wanted to do it. But now he says he's not sure the "1000 percent" standard is the right one.

No doubt, many Warner supporters and other Democratic Party movers and shakers would like to see Warner in the crowded field, perhaps as an alternative to Edwards as the attractive Southerner in the race. Some probably want Warner in only as an Edwards spoiler, while others genuinely like the former Virginia governor and would support him all the way. (Our read of the polls has been that Edwards was a huge beneficiary of Warner's decision to drop out.)

In any event, with South Carolina shaping up as a key early battleground state (and Iowa looking increasingly irrelevant with Vilsack in the field), it's certainly interesting to find non-candidate Warner making the trek to Charleston.

To be sure, Warner was as diplomatic as possible, telling the group that he has a lot of respect for Sen. Barack Obama. Warner offered a story in which, before meeting Obama, he expected to dislike the Illinois Senator, but ended up getting completely charmed when the two finally had a chance to sit down together.

Warner told the group he's beginning to focus on two major policy issues: health care and energy independence. [Tomorrow, the Curmudgeon will discuss Democrats' tendency to conflate policies on energy independence with those concerning climate change, which turn out to be two very different, albeit overlapping, subjects.] Warner noted that the federal government spends about as much each year on energy independence (we guess he means alternative energy) as it does in a week on the war in Iraq.

Warner also clearly opened the door to serving as the Democratic nominee for Vice President, and in the end, that could be what he's angling for.

Right now, we think Warner's in "wait and see" mode. He's got enough money--both from his personal fortune and in the bank of his Forward Together pac--that he can afford to jump in later than many of his rivals. We suspect that if Hillary can't get traction in the polls after Obama's leap into the race, Warner will be sorely tempted, especially if Edwards begins emerging as a kind of party alternative to the two stalemated leaders.

At the same time, we can't help but think the media will taunt Warner as a "flip-flopper" if, after declaring himself out, he suddenly gets back in. He'd need a good cover story for that one.

The one thing that is clear is that Warner hasn't fully disengaged from the race. There's bound to be more to this story in the coming weeks.