Seeking questions for Al Gore
Interested in our opinion on the energy plan Al Gore unveiled yesterday in Washington? Click here for our reaction.
Not everyone can get their questions answered by Al Gore, but Tom Brokaw will on Sunday when he sits down with the former vice president on "Meet the Press."
What questions would you like to have asked of Al Gore? Offer up your suggestions in our comment area.
Later on, we'll compare your questions with the ones put together by a national environmental blog — I'll bet some of them are the same!

I'd like to know more about why Gore's plan sets an artificial deadline of 10 years. Does he literally think the planet will not survive if we don't meet us goal by then?
Posted by: Larry | July 18, 2008 at 03:07 PM
I probably won't watch, but... I heard him say that his plan would raise the price of electricity. I'd ask him about that.
Posted by: darnel | July 18, 2008 at 03:09 PM
I'd ask him who he will ask to pay for replacement costs of the new vehicles that would have to come on line, the retraining of combustion engine mechanics and everyone else involved in these industries, the construction of overhead power supplies for the national railway system, battery/solar powered airplanes and so on.
Posted by: BryceW | July 18, 2008 at 05:14 PM
The standard Republican comment whenever I bring up the name Al Gore for any reason is - if you are going to "talk" green, you have to "live" green. I try to stand on my point but people just can't understand why with all this talk of saving the earth and environment, why he drives SUVs and all the rest of their claims. So I'd want to hear Al Gore be asked that question directly and to hear his response. No matter what - for me and for all of us - there is only this one earth and we need to save it - no excuses - no politics - no maybe someday ... today. We need peace, we need to ALL sit at the same table and work together, and we need to save our ONE earth. It's too late to act local think global - it's time to act local and global. It's not just pretty words or some hope for a change - it's now or never. Things have to change all over to bring us all together and save us all. Thanks ... Le Sheppard, Proud resident of Wrightstown, Bucks County, PA
Posted by: Le Sheppard | July 18, 2008 at 05:35 PM
Dear Mr. Gore,
As I am naturally skeptical about most plans that don’t take into consideration unintended consequences, I do believe as you, we must do something. I would like to believe you and T Bone Pickens preaching the gospel of wind energy, natural gas, nuclear, and solar to provide America with a self sustaining energy supply. What do you think are the unintended consequences in?
-Wind energy (cost of easements and transmission lines)
-Natural Gas (price of utilities and automobile emissions)
-Solar energy (stored or placed on the grid)
-Nuclear (waist disposal and safety)
Is another technology on the horizon for all inclusive energy source?
We must stop redistribution of wealth to radical oil bearing countries.
Posted by: Councilman Ron Weidmann | July 18, 2008 at 05:39 PM
This plan is a complete sham. We keep spending money on research with little results. He like the other researchers seek to enrich themselves on the backs of the American people. We need to have less government interference not more.
The government promoting Ethanol has only caused more problems.
Posted by: John | July 18, 2008 at 05:42 PM
The only reason Al won an Oscar and Nobel award is because they are both liberal. Al is a goofball rich kid who has been very lucky in life....Who cares?
Posted by: BMT | July 18, 2008 at 05:44 PM
wind energy,is most Important/
Posted by: char | July 18, 2008 at 05:44 PM
Mr. Gore, if we do as you sugest and elimenate all forms of power generation except wind and solar, what do we do on days that the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow?
Posted by: Tom McDonnell | July 18, 2008 at 05:48 PM
I would ask Al what percentage of our nation's energy needs would be supplied by nuclear power, which I consider the most vile form of energy production, leaving materials to be dealt with fro millions of years. Coal is not my choice, either. Natural gas is abundant and should be the next best fuel/\.
Posted by: emily | July 18, 2008 at 05:57 PM
Hi,a qwikie from australia.We already know there are many suitable energy sources such as hydrogen and thermal power.The big question is when are the "money men" whom own the poison energy supplies going start letting us use the clean ones.Surely they have their kids futures to worry about as well?
Posted by: mal cliff | July 18, 2008 at 06:11 PM
Mr. Gore:
How did you calculate the $1/gallon price for the renewable replacement for gasoline? My engineering intuition tells me that number is much too low.
Posted by: Michael | July 18, 2008 at 06:11 PM
What can the coal industry do, even against its current eonomic interest, to capture carbon and reduce emissions, and what can the electric power industry do to assure an electrical power grid that isn't subject to massive failures?
Posted by: Jim | July 18, 2008 at 06:16 PM
Mr Gore,
Could you tell me why you preach to reduce our "carbon footprint" but you are unwilling to do so yourself. Could you tell me why you are still flying all around in that jet and that your personal home energy bill is equal to the combined energy bills of over 200 homes?
You know as well as we all do that "man made" global warming is fraud science to reduce our dependance on oil. No problem with the reduction of our dependence but in doing so your stamping out the resources that we do have that can bridge the US to "environmentally friendly" solutions.
Those bridges are natural gas and coal. The end result should be hydrogen as 72 percent of the earths surface in H2O.
If we hadn't spent hundreds of billions already on the war we would have already had all the money required to build the infrastructure for hydrogen. Do you plan on spending billions more on the development of energy sources that are not economically feasible or are we now going to pull our heads out of our A**** and start making a real workable plan happen?
Posted by: Heywood Jablome | July 18, 2008 at 06:24 PM
Mr. Gore: Can you spell hypocrite and do you know what it means? If you want to do your part to save the planet, put a gun in your mouth and pull the trigger.
Result: One less blowhard spouting carbon dioxide and flying all over the place in their private jet!!!
Posted by: Old Hippy | July 18, 2008 at 08:08 PM
Al,
I too would like to know who will absorb the cost of re-invention of the combustion engines that we are so accustomed to. Your plan is global, right? This government cannot even police NAFTA and the FTA when so many countries are ignoring human rights and forced labor of the children. Who is going to ploice this endevor, the US Government? I do agree something has to be done but in ten years, and to this extent!!
Posted by: Dave | July 18, 2008 at 08:48 PM
Will you, Al Gore, cease your excessive energy usage and join with the Americans that have begun to conserve their use of electrical services? Also, will you cease excessive travel that causes increased fuel use thereby increasing pollution?
If you attempt to talk around these questions you will be seen as a spokesman that is not to be taken seriously!
Posted by: Lee S Gliddon Jr | July 18, 2008 at 09:06 PM
Mr.Gore,since your "track record" is that of being very liberal and of the opinion that government can save us from ourselves,is it hypocritical for you to use more energy in your home in one month than an averge American uses in a year,but promote the "GREEN agenda and conservation???????
my point Sir,how can you do one thing but promote another???
Posted by: Michael M. Mills | July 18, 2008 at 09:21 PM
Dear Mr. Gore,
There are aproximately 6.5 billion people on the earth. Without the use of fossil fuels to provide the energy to power Combine Harvesters, Tractors, Ships,and Trucks, not to mention fertilizers, pharmaceuticals and pesticides, the planet may be able to suport 1 - 2 billion people. Are you going to volunteer to be part of the great die-off in the next 10 years? Wise-up. There are no viable alternatives. Sensible people will be quite happy to put up with a little global warming to remain alive, even assuming that CO2 is causing this, and not natural changes.
David Wood
Posted by: David G. Wood | July 18, 2008 at 09:40 PM
What about collecting solar power in cells "planted" on the million acres of flat roofs across the country? Businesses would get credits to participate.
Posted by: Mary Ellen Fox | July 18, 2008 at 09:43 PM
And why are most of the comments posted here negative and critical? Where are your suggestions for solutions?
Posted by: Mary Ellen Fox | July 18, 2008 at 10:04 PM
Were you too dogmatic about global warming in "An Inconvenient Truth?"
Posted by: Edwin Gaster | July 18, 2008 at 10:05 PM
Dear, Dr. Solar, how do you account for the fact that over the past 7 years, during your blow-fest on global warming, that NOAA confirms that global temperatures have fallen? The reason is that the sun is 5% to 10% less active, with almost no sunspot activity. How does my carbon footprint cause the sun to be cooler?
Posted by: Matt Bayan | July 18, 2008 at 10:13 PM
This is a question in which the issue being touched on really bothers me; it's also not on a very large scale, but in a couple of cities, including my own. My city already has a power plant and many substations placed throughout. Some company is building another power plant for its own, personal use. It is said that this power plant will be able to power my entire city within two to three years of its establishment. Mr. Gore, will issues such as seemingly unneeded power sources, which will ultimately waste the fossil fuels that my city's plants run on, be mended? I just don't seem to understand why ANOTHER power plant needs to be built when there is ALREADY one that can power the whole city. And by the way, if anyone else reads this, is there this same issue occuring in a place that you know of? Let me know.
Posted by: BenS | July 18, 2008 at 11:03 PM
Mr. Gore, why don't you stay home, nice home that, because you are not needed or wanted in politics, civil or governmental. You are not going to make it back to Washington this way or any other. That's my question, Why don't you stay home and keep your silly mouth shut? You embarrass all of us.
Posted by: Cynthia Powell | July 19, 2008 at 02:58 AM
I want to know what Gore is doing personally do help want he tells us WE need to do. With his house using more electricity then most houses I have a problem with his ideas. Also why didnt he say we should do all this when he was VP??? Is it because he couldnt get the personal gain and finanical gain if he started this when he was VP.
Posted by: carla orent | July 19, 2008 at 11:05 AM
There is still honest, scientific debate about the major causes of global warming and new alternative fuel technologies are being developed at a rapidly increasing rate.
Would Mr. Gore agree or disagree that a good "stop gap" measure would give us enough time to fully develop and deploy new energy sources?
Posted by: John Maceda | July 19, 2008 at 12:31 PM
I understand that Gore said two days ago in Washington, D.C. that we need to close all coal plants within 10 years. Since coal plants supply more than half of the electricity in this country, where will you get the power if we close those plants? Are you advocating a man to the moon project on new nuclear plants, more hydroelectric dams, wind farms off Nantucket, and new transmission rights of way so a little morew solar can be used? Don't you think it is more efficient and affordable (and price is REAL important right now) to invest money into the clean coal techology that will make those coal plants cleaner?
Posted by: Suzanne Bailey | July 19, 2008 at 02:12 PM
Mr Gore you keep saying there is a concinsus on global warming and its cause but there are others with different opinions why don't you have a national televised debate with them.we are mostly fed one side of the story
Posted by: Jake Kipfinger | July 19, 2008 at 06:16 PM
Our country needs new electric generation. Mr Gore's solution seems arbitrary in both its scope and timing. It strikes me that currently all new generation faces legal challenges. Coal faces challenges over the alleged global warming contribution. Wind faces challenges over 'visual pollution' and I'm sure soon it's impact on migratory birds. Solar will face legal challenges due to the shear magnitude of land required to achieve this goal. None of the above items take into consideration the environmental lawsuits that will be filed trying to prevent building new transmission lines to these new facilities. Do you, Mr. Gore, believe that it would be possible to even overcome the NIMBY (Not-In-My-Back-Yard) syndrome within 10 years, let alone to actually build the capacity that you've suggested?
Posted by: Paul Elliott | July 19, 2008 at 10:04 PM
It is more important to improve efficiency of the current energy sources than start from scratch on new sources. How does Gore plan to finance energy research?
Posted by: Mikhail | July 20, 2008 at 10:34 AM
To Matt Bayan - I don't know where you get your figures, but tyhe following is a quote directly from the NOAA Web site: "Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.74°C (plus or minus 0.18°C) since the late-19th century, and the linear trend for the past 50 years of 0.13°C (plus or minus 0.03°C) per decade is nearly twice that for the past 100 years. The warming has not been globally uniform. Some areas (including parts of the southeastern U.S. and parts of the North Atlantic) have, in fact, cooled slightly over the last century. The recent warmth has been greatest over North America and Eurasia between 40 and 70°N. Lastly, seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001 and the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1995."
Posted by: Bob Difley | July 20, 2008 at 12:39 PM
Is it true Mr Gore is part of a company that brokers "green credits"? What commissions are paid? To whom are they paid?
Posted by: John K | July 20, 2008 at 03:34 PM
whom gets paid and for what is irellevant. the percentage of forest to industry is not changing (except more industry and less forest)all it means now is they can legally make pollution, someone makes muny out of it and the public is being duped into thinking something is being done.
Posted by: mal cliff | July 20, 2008 at 06:18 PM
How are you going to stop the current fossil fuel energy plants now, so we can transition into a renewable energy economy?
Posted by: Emily R | July 21, 2008 at 12:32 PM
I watched a portion of Mr. Gores speech and spotted a few Conceptual Gems like the national electric Grid. However how is the working class public going to afford the new electric cars when we are already pinched finacially close to the breaking point. Is it his goal to force people to use public transportaion when it doesn't exist except in the Big cities? If we are going to have lofty goals why not a nation wide passenger monorail system. Basically I believe without a balanced energy (multiple sources)his is just a pipe dream designed to achieve Global Gaverance.
Posted by: R Johnson | July 21, 2008 at 12:50 PM