In today's New York Times, Al Gore shows us what a responsible energy policy might look like (Hat tip: Open Left). Most of the article dove-tails with what we've already heard from Obama on the campaign trail, with one notable exception:
...those who spend hundreds of millions promoting “clean coal” technology consistently omit the fact that there is little investment and not a single large-scale demonstration project in the United States for capturing and safely burying all of this pollution. If the coal industry can make good on this promise, then I’m all for it. But until that day comes, we simply cannot any longer base the strategy for human survival on a cynical and self-interested illusion.
In The O-List, The New Republic speculates on the likelihood of Gore getting a cabinet seat:
Obama may have run on the greenest platform in decades, but the former veep took pains not to get too involved in the campaign--a reticence that may point to his skepticism of Obama's environmental bona fides. That means an EPA slot or climate-czar role looks unlikely. Instead, he'll be the looming conscience of the party...
How should we read Gore's op-ed in this context? Obama may run out of holes he can fill with Clinton-era wonks and still get away with calling it a "change" administration, but wouldn't it feel good to have Gore back in the Cabinet Room? Or should we be hoping instead for the situation described by The New Republic, where Gore-as-outsider can play the heavy if Obama starts to wander and stray on environmental policy?

No comments: