To the delight of late-night comedians and the grist grinders of the blogosphere, Al Gore is prone to occasional exaggeration. His Oscar-winning documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," is no exception. There are misstatements and overconfident assertions in various parts of Gore's seminar.

But Gore gets the basic story right. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, human activity is "very likely" the main driver of global warming. Mainstream climate models predict warming in the neighborhood of 2 to 4 degrees (but perhaps as much as 10 or more degrees) Fahrenheit by the year 2100.

Rising seas, inundation of low-lying coastal areas, punishing droughts (particularly in tropical areas), and northward migration of tropical pests and pathogens may be inevitable.

Gore is also mostly right about how to beat back the problem. Energy efficiency, enhanced building codes, combined heat and power systems, and renewable energy are sensible measures for an anti-global warming strategy. But in his recent testimony on Capitol Hill, Gore might have won over wavering lawmakers by linking climate change to another national conundrum: our rickety, unreliable electrical power transmission and distribution systems.

America's power grids are susceptible to delivery bottlenecks, cascading blackouts, manipulation by energy traders, and other technical and human failings.

Alternative energy systems like wind, solar and biomass, when deployed in decentralized fashion have real long-term economic and environmental advantages over large, centrally located power plants that rely on natural gas, uranium or coal — including so-called "clean coal."

Decentralized systems are easier to retrofit, scale-up and down, and when they fail, fewer people are affected. Considering total costs over the lifetime of the technology, local and neighborhood-level alternative energy systems have more promise than other conventional options, such as natural gas and nuclear.

Natural gas contains carbon, so from the get-go, it's an imperfect fuel in the fight against global warming.

While — as various Republican senators recently reminded Gore — uranium is carbon-free, the former vice president made the right call on nuclear energy during his testimony, assigning it a small role in the future energy mix. It remains the case that nuclear power generates more problems than it solves.

A 1,000 megawatt nuclear power plant costs around $2 billion to build by conservative estimates, and depending on regulatory vagaries and public receptiveness takes five years to construct.

Storing nuclear waste is costly as is the decommissioning of old plants. Space for radioactive waste in the permanent storage site being built at Yucca Mountain, Nev., will run out before mid-century. Despite these problems, pro-nuclear voices are winning new converts, including in Washington. Gore has weighed the costs and benefits of nuclear. He believes we're better off with combinations of smarter, cheaper, safer alternatives.

Gore's former colleagues in the House and Senate, including members of his own party, occasionally hold back praise for the former vice president, precisely because he so dearly craves it.

This time, on this issue, powerful people in Washington are warming up to Gore. Why? Because, so far, he's better than anyone else at explaining why we must stop warming up the planet.

Matthew R. Auer is a professor of public and environmental affairs at Indiana University. Reach him at SPEA Building, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47404-7000.