The clean energy gap

Here's an interesting disparity. A couple of weeks ago, Al Gore called on America to take on the challenge of getting all its electricity from clean sources within 10 years.

Ambitious, audacious, call it what you want, but it is very much in keeping with the notion that we may not have the luxury of waiting any longer if we want to avoid catastrophic climate change.

So how does the presumptive nominee of the party that attracts most environmentalists' support respond? Let's look at the relevant section of his new energy plan, released earlier this week.

Obama's comprehensive New Energy for America plan will: Ensure 10 percent of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025

Obama has vowed to put Gore to work helping him figure out how to address the challenge of climate change, should the two of them be in a position to do so come 2009. (And no, Gore will not be a vice-presidential candidate.)

But there's a big difference between Gore's take on what we should be aiming for and Obama's.

Part of the problem is the reality that half of our electricity comes from coal, which as NASA's James Hansen repeatedly reminds us, has to be phased out -- globally -- within 20 years or so if we are have a hope in hell of keeping our greenhouse-gas concentrations below the danger level.

And telling thousands upon thousands of Americans who make their living from digging and processing coal that they're out of luck is not something any respectable presidential candidate wants to do.

So you see the problem.

James Hrynyshyn's blog posts are provided by LifeWire, a part of The New York Times Company.