Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Gore in Copenhagen: Favors Carbon Tax; Calls Deniers 'Reckless Fools'
Former US vice-president and environmental hero turns up the pressure on Barack Obama to pass climate change law
Al Gore took full advantage of his stature among fellow environmentalists to dish out some hard home truths today - and try to prod the climate change summit towards a deal.
Former US vice-president Al Gore delivers a speech in the Bella center, Copenhagen. (Photograph: Henning Bagger/EPA) The former US vice-president, though among friends, was unsparing. He turned up the pressure on Barack Obama, calling on activists to press the White House and the Senate to pass a climate change law by the 30th anniversary of Earth day in late April.
"Join me in asking president Obama and the US Senate to set a deadline of 22 April for final action in the US Senate," he said. "I do not believe we can wait till next November or December."
The ultimatum to Obama was a departure for Gore who has been cautious of exerting too much pressure on the president, or causing him embarrassment.
He kept up the pace by calling for the international community to sign up to a fully fledged climate change treaty by July 2010 - and then announcing that Mexico was prepared to host a deal-making summit.
He scolded rich countries for demanding the developing world offer evidence of emissions cuts while at the same time trying to inflate the funds they were prepared to offer poor countries to deal with climate change. "This issue of transparency should also be applied to financial pledges of developed countries," he said. "How many times has same money been pledged two, three or even four times?"
But Gore also reprimanded rapidly emerging economies for balking at the idea of an international monitoring regime for emissions cuts. He advised them to be sensitive to fears that China and India could use climate change to gain competitive economic advantage.
"They should take into account the economic situation in our world today," he said. "Working people in many of our developed economies have had a bitter experience of outsourcing of jobs empowered by information technology."
He went on: "I would ask for an understanding of the difficulty that poses for elected officials who are charged with responsibility of recognising the economic interests of those men and women."
Gore was just as tough on activists who have embraced him as a hero, demanding they set aside their pride and their principles and embrace a deal - no matter how imperfect.
He said he recognised their frustration with the glacial pace of negotiations. He agreed that cap-and-trade schemes to cut carbon emissions were an imperfect solution - Gore confessed to favouring a carbon tax - but the current efforts for a deal were the best prospect of avoiding catastrophic climate change.
And there was no trace of sympathy for opponents of action on climate change. Gore began with a brief run-through of the latest science on melting of the Arctic ice cap, evidence he said "only reckless fools would ignore".
On a day that saw Arnold Schwarzenegger walking the carpet before the television cameras, and actor Daryl Hannah offering tips on green living, Gore was still the undisputed star of the meeting - at least until Obama turns up on Friday.
- Posted in
65 Comments so far
Show AllUntil the fundamental rights of millions of traditional and indigenous people to "prior and informed consultation" on major projects that affect them, in regions of the globe where extractive, monoculture, hydropower and other massive projects are bulldozed through without hearings, without a forum for solidly pre-informed challeng of environmental impact statements; where land is a bargaining chip for transnational corporations rather than a fundamental right of humanity to resolve food and water insecurity, we will have the dynamic of that infamous sucking sound rendering millions of people the margin in the profit margin that slips into other accounting columns where there is no funding for industrial refugees. This is systematized genocide and monoculture that not even those perpetrating can escape the consequences of climate crisis and assassination of the living planet.
Do you have that queasy feeling of impotence? Does your head spin? Open wide the eyes and observe the millions of people sacrificed - solidarity at the root of origin - where the extraction begins is one of our greatest tools for reclaiming the integrity of life on this planet. The problem is not the people or there being too many of them, but the systematic abrogation of human rights.
Did Arnold drive up to the summit in one of his Hummers?
No, Arnold set an example by riding in on a bicycle. Meanwhile, his team of bodyguards flanked him with several Hummers.
[Sarcasm mode off]
That was great!!
Yet again....
Screw the legislation, it's redundant and pointless, and dangerous because it will be weak. The EPA completed its endangerment finding, found that greenhouse gases are a threat to human health and welfare, and now has the authority to regulate them. Period.
zmann
Don't count on it too much. They have grabbed the hot handle of the skillet from Congress and it may burn them.
Why does this article portray Gore as a "tough" moralist who can "scold" at will? Considering this was the same man who rejected the demand by the Pacific island nations to radically cut emissions 10+ years ago in Kyoto, I don't exactly see him as a "tough" negotiator.
"But Gore also reprimanded rapidly emerging economies for balking at the idea of an international monitoring regime for emissions cuts."
Who benefits here? Who will control this international monitoring the agency? The same crew as the IMF or the security council?
"He advised them to be sensitive to fears that China and India could use climate change to gain competitive economic advantage."
Again, who benefits from a weak China and India?
"They should take into account the economic situation in our world today. Working people in many of our developed economies have had a bitter experience of outsourcing of jobs empowered by information technology. I would ask for an understanding of the difficulty that poses for elected officials who are charged with responsibility of recognising the economic interests of those men and women."
This doesn't follow from the previous paragraph. Plus, Gore, for all your supposed care about the average worker, why did you and Bill allow NAFTA?
"Gore was just as tough on activists who have embraced him as a hero, demanding they set aside their pride and their principles and embrace a deal - no matter how imperfect."
What's this supposed to mean? Accept the deal that favors the First World over the Third because that's somehow better than no deal?
Anyone capable of cracking open a book should read, in sequence, EARTH IN THE BALANCE, AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH, and his latest best-seller, OUR CHOICE, which offers more detailed solutions to the problem of climate change. Al Gore richly deserves the respect he receives all over the world - not to mention the Nobel Peace Prize (shared with the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).
In 2000, we were deprived of the chance for a genuinely progressive, "environmental" presidency.
tailfeather has made some good points below. I was going to pick on these same points about Al Gore. I'm not sure if he is living under the illusion that the environmental movement and climate change activists look up to him as any kind of role model or leader. The Nobel committee needlessly decided to split the award between Al Gore and IPCC. That was two years ago - he had his 15 minutes of fame. His movie got the Oscar - and these are more than enough compensation for what happened in 2000. If he still wants to be part of the movement, then he had better own up to his own omissions and commissions. Or better yet, let other people lead the fight, and speak only when asked. I say all this because his presence at venues like Copenhagen and still talking about cap and trade may actually turn off those who are on the right, or some sceptics. And it's exactly those that need to be convinced and won over - and projecting Gore as some kind of spokesperson on this issue is not helping in that regard. He doesn't need to preach to the choir.
>>>"He advised them to be sensitive to fears that China and India could use climate change to gain competitive economic advantage."
What the hell was that? The choice of words betrays his own agenda and hypocrisy, I think. The issue is real - but it would have a better impact if raised by someone seen as neutral and with better credentials on globalization.
>>>"Working people in many of our developed economies have had a bitter experience of outsourcing of jobs empowered by information technology."
Whose fault is that? Having pushed through NAFTA and never having taken a stand against globalization, I think he should just shut up go.
>>>He went on: "I would ask for an understanding of the difficulty that poses for elected officials who are charged with responsibility of recognising the economic interests of those men and women."
No, he shouldn't be pleading for understanding the difficulty of "elected officials", but exposing them as nothing more than corporate lackeys.
My biggest complaint about Al Gore is that, for someone who is supposedly knowledgeable and is passionate about action on climate change, he's extremely silent on the role of livestock and meat production when it comes GHG emissions. He's not alone on this - even George Monbiot has made some snide comments about vegetarians. I take it as evidence of their hypocrisy. It's one thing to be unable to give up meat - personal change is not easy - it's another thing to whitewash an entire issue while still enjoying the limelight as an activist.
And what the hell is Arnold Schwarzenegger doing in Copenhagen? As the man who originally convinced an auto manufacturer to produce a civilian version of that monstrosity called Hummer, and who kept spouting idiotic ideas like a hydrogen-fueled Hummer and a green Hummer, this chap is a total phony - who nevertheless understands which way the wind is blowing in California. James Hansen may be right - maybe it's best to ditch Copenhagen and start again. It's a painful thing to imagine that could be the best option here.
Excellent points Alcyon. And let us not forget that one of the reasons we are constantly hearing about Al Gore and listening to his hypocritical, self-serving speeches - at the expense of having truly open discussions and hearing from everyone on all topics related to climate change - is that Al Gore helped set up the communications stage.
The Telecommunications Act sailed through Congress in February, 1996. "I thank the Vice President (Al Gore), who fought for this bill for so long on behalf of the American people. And I thank the members of Congress in both parties, starting with the leadership, who believed in the promise and the possibility of telecommunications reform." President Bill Clinton, February 8, 1996.
Alcyon
"If he still wants to be part of the movement, then he had better own up to his own omissions and commissions. Or better yet, let other people lead the fight, and speak only when asked. I say all this because his presence at venues like Copenhagen and still talking about cap and trade may actually turn off those who are on the right, or some skeptics. And it's exactly those that need to be convinced and won over - and projecting Gore as some kind of spokesperson on this issue is not helping in that regard. He doesn't need to preach to the choir."
And speaking as a wavering skeptic, I can verify that you are exactly correct. He does more damage than good at this point.
Your points on China and India, NAFTA and Mr. Gore's betrayal of the American worker are well taken. Very well taken.
I would say in defense of Mr. Gore that very few folks are going to give up meat in any instance.
"James Hansen may be right - maybe it's best to ditch Copenhagen and start again. It's a painful thing to imagine that could be the best option here."
That may very well be the best option. The one thing that I've gleaned so far is that its mostly about money at Copenhagen.
Arnold who?????
I am still wading through the information and links you and Ubrew12 gave me. I'm leaning a bit, but other questions are really piling up if its correct.
Thanks Again
"Gore's leadership is wanting in several respects, principal among which is his acceptance of the cap-n-trade swindle and all that entails."
Excellent point!
Gore makes a bloody fortune out of selling indulgences, er "Carbon Offsets". He probably has plans to get even richer by involving himself in "cap and trade".
Freedom_Lover
As I understood it he has quite a few investments that stand to profit from the passage of that trashy legislation, but it looks like he would have plenty of company.
I don't know about his investment involvement as fact , but thats what I've seen in a number of economic reports.
Yes Gore is a partner in the aptly named, 'Blood and Gore' which is going to be a fascilitator of this whole cap and trade scheme, which incidentally was concocted by none other than our old friend Ken Lay.
Could you provide a reference to Ken Lay's authorship? I thought this was something that has been around for 30+ years, and that the EPA has been utilizing a watered-down version through its "smog credit" program for at least 20 years.
Well, is it the moon phase, biorhythms, or the astrological chart? How could we have any climate conference without Al Gore adding his own peculiar blather to the whole affair?
Al Gore could make his greatest contribution to reducing global warming by keeping his countrypolitan-spoiled-rich- kid yap shut and by so doing reducing the amount of hot air circulating around the issue.
Poet
Hey Poet, why don't you shut the f*ck up, I am so sick of jerks like you shitting on Gore, the guy has basically brought global warming to the forefront of everyones attention singlehandedly and Glenn Beck/Rush Limbaugh listening jerks like you who don't believe it is real are willing to close your eyes to a real danger facing this planet. The other real danger facing this planet is idiots like you who together will not listen to reason or scientific fact but instead will listen to right wing propaganda about the subject which is fueled by the corporate interests to keep fossil fuels as a main source of energy. God people are so stupid, just look at the Sarah Palin supporters and that says it all.
Poet, I believe you have blasphemed against this guy's religious beliefs.
Diogenes57
Excuse me? In the first place your personal attack on Poet is unjustified, unwarrented and uninformed. Aside from that its bad manners.
In the first place Al Gore has done little of what you say.
He has however:
Porduced a film with gross inaccuracies in it. Katrina was caused by GW for God's sake. Among others.
His little mistake at Copenhasgen is just the end of a long list of "embellishment's" of the facts by Gore.
And a lot of talking the talk while not walking the walk doesn't help anyone.
And try to put a bit of civility in your postings. And I'd be very careful before tossing out the "stupid" tag to others
No quite the contrary, it is quite justified, and by you saying Katrina was caused by "GW" I assume you mean God's will, well hurricanes come and go but the fact that the oceans are heating up causing more powerful storms is a consequence of man's actions spewing CO2 into the air. But of course you don't believe that and the fact that Al Gore takes a plane instead of going on a horse or a dingy in the ocean to his destinations makes him a hypocrite is totally convoluted logic and shows your stupidity as well. So congratulations, you also have also won the dubious title of STUPID.
Thanks for bringing up my favorite point.
Al Gore should swim over to Copenhagen, and live in a cave.
Then we could listen to his views on global warming.
Face it, we are all wasting energy by sitting at the computer blogging.
Some of us who are wasting energy begrudge Gore for using a watt or two while trying to save the planet.
Al Gore claimed that Katrina was caused by GW, Perhaps you should investigate what you are talking about a bit better.
Stating that AGW is a proven fact is false by any statistical measure. The best folks admit its not something thats certain. If you believe in it, great...but every time yopu say denier, or someone says someone is wierd because they don't "believe, it puts your goal that much further away.
As I told Alcyon I'm still working thru information he and Ubrew 12 gave me, so it makes no difference if you call me stupid or someone calls me wierd, I'll still make up my own mind.
However the exact folks Alcyon points out you need to convince won't. Insult them and they won't bother. Lecture them as if you are the all knowing God of information and they will tune you out. Something to think about.
As to Al, his many houses of extrodinary size, his usual rides, his use of private jets, all of these don't exactly fit the criteria he tells me I should use.
I want to concratulate you on your sucess in cleaning up the language and your mostly civi posting. You dop perhaps need to work on the personal insult side a bit more. Perhaps mentally challanged or empty headed? Skeptic would do nicely as its correct.
Pax
Gravity and evolution aren't proven facts either.
Well I'd agree with you on evolution, just accepted....but gravity is well proven to me....step off the neasrest building and thats proof enough for me. Thats why I don't step off those darn buildings!
Tough, but on target.
Diogenes57:
Have you seen the data yourself? Not as filtered through Al and his croneys, but the raw data itself. Probably not because most of the big universities driving the debate won't release it, only the 'conclusions' drawn from it.
Do you trust the IMF to shepherd in a better future for the world? Do you really believe somehow that taxing the gas that we all exhale with every breath, (and sending the money to the big central banks) will somehow make the world a better place?
Have you seen the data, Liberaltarian?
"Probably not, because most of the big universities driving the debate won't release it." And so - what's your point? If you haven't seen the data, than maybe you should let the people who have seen it do the talking?
Point being that they won't release it to other scientists?
Can you supply a credible reference for your claim?
One would be the scientists that had asked for the data from England before the e-mails came out. I find them as credible as any of the others.
Reference?
Link?
You haven't seen the raw data either. There's too much of it. Certain GW denier websites will purport to 'give you' the 'raw data', but what they give is carefully picked over to support their claims. The planet is spending several billion dollars a year now generating raw data about GW and condensing it into conclusions, and YOU want access to the original data to generate your OWN conclusions? Whatever, Don Quixote.
I thought a lot of the raw data had been destroyed? And as I looked further...a lot of raw data is "unavailable" Its not avilable to other scientists either it seems.
Picking over to support claims is what gets Al in trouble isn't it?
The raw data is still at the met offices, where the CRU got it from.
Wouldn't do me any good if it was delievered to my door! :)
No, I meant the specific data that the conclusions and the models were based on. If thasty data can't be produced, the conclusions and the models are scientifically worthless as the rersults cannot be reproduced.
Thats the way I understand science in any case....but you know how we wierd skeptics are. (LOL)
Dude, the only person listening to Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh here on Common Dreams is me, and that's because they're my main assignment for my position at Media Matters. Your attack against Poet is unwarranted, misplaced, and rather rude. Nearly everyone here (with the exception of Henry8, but he's just weird that way ;-) knows global warming/climate change is caused by greenhouse gas emissions caused by human activity. And we also know that the cap and trade legislation being pushed through Congress right now in its current form, and perhaps any form, is a solution that will not work. Al Gore has sacrificed a lot to bring attention to this crisis, and I commend him for donating so much of the money he earns from his investments to groups that further raise awareness of climate change (or so it's been reported, I haven't looked into it myself).
However, I am a big believer in practicing what you preach, and until recently, Gore has not been trying to live up to it. And because he is so public on this issue and so well-known, any appearance of hypocrisy on his part damages the climate justice movement.
Relax man. And I think you should apologize.
What we do to the environment (animals included), we do to ourselves.
We have evolved into nothing better than savages.
Raping the land, taking all we can, looking the other way while factories mutilate and torture animals for our pleasure.
Supply and demand will only change when we stop demanding.
Stop overconsuming and pass up the cheeseburger.
Defensiveness and feigned ignorance is no longer acceptable.
We have to take responsibility for our own actions negatively impacting the planet as well as holding the government responsible.
From the UK Daily Express:
"PRINCE Charles used up seven months’ worth of the average British person’s “carbon footprint” yesterday flying to Copenhagen on an executive jet to make a speech on climate change.
The heir to the throne, who prides himself on his green credentials, cost taxpayers an estimated £12,000 and racked up a 6.486-ton carbon footprint in one day by taking a seven-seater RAF Royal Flight HS125 jet to the summit in the Danish capital."
Sounds like the British answer to Al Gore!
Poet
The implications of drastic climate change have precisely nothing to do with Al Gore. He happens to be calling serious attention to the issue, and because you disappprove of many of his past political actions (so do I, btw), what does that have to do with the issue at hand? Whether Gore is a corporate prostitute or a corrupt hypocrite, the fact remains that global warming threatens the entire earth and all the creatures on it. Please try to separate your disdain for Al Gore (I've never liked the guy personally or politically, but so what?) from the very real crisis this planet is in, thanks to our devil-may-care way of life for the past 50 years.
Al Gore--Words.
Words at the climate summit in Copenhagen where he is a featured speaker.
What do you want him to do--build a solution to global warming with hammer and nail.
Who is trying harder to save the planet than Al Gore?
Too bad he lost weight and took away everybody's fun at throwing the word fat in with the other criticisms.
All that Al Gore-bashing reminds me of Salvation Army refusing to accept money from some lucky lottery winner, because they considered it to be tainted - gambling is a sin, you know.
I think that the climate crisis is so serious, that I welcome help wherever it comes from, without any ideological purity tests, or immaculate credentials.
Despite all his faults, I suspect that Al Gore has done more to make people aware of the problem, than all his critics here ever will.
Thank you, Al. I'm trying to do my part, though I'm not perfect either.
Oh, and Alcyon, don't worry - the wingnuts won't "believe" that global warming is real, even if they hear it from the Pope, or Virgin Mary herself.
Bea, I guess you're right when you say "the climate crisis is so serious, that I welcome help wherever it comes from". It's also possible that many people realized the seriousness of this crisis after watching or reading "Inconvenient Truth". So I'm sorry if I have offended some Al Gore fans here.
However, I'm not hung up on any kind of "ideological purity tests", and I don't expect everyone calling for action on climate change to be perfect. It's just that I would like people in the limelight to do a little bit more than the average Joe, and not make big compromises. Al Gore still wants to work with the system - which is basically driven by corporate interests - rather than use his position to challenge the system. I don't know if he personally stands to benefit from the cap and trade scheme, but when that has been shown to be somewhat of a sham, he should expose its limitations and negative effects (as it can give the impression of "doing something"). I myself used to think that it could be a useful tool along with carbon tax, but others have convinced me that cap and trade should go.
Al Gore does not address the big elephant in the room - namely the role of livestock and meat production. I don't expect him to become a vegan - he should at least call for seriously cutting down on production and consumption of meat. Instead he seems to be opposing something only when it's fashionable and not risky - such as opposing the coal industry. Anyone can do that today (although it's not having much effect yet), whereas talking about meat takes a bit of risk-taking - because it's so mainstream. He should have the courage to "scold" American media for not doing enough on this issue. And so on...
Contrast Al Gore with James Hansen. Hansen had the courage and the integrity to sound the alarm, while still being an insider. He says cap and trade has serious problems. When asked for a simple advice on some TV program, he said "My message to you is: Be Veg, Go Green, Save the Planet." He also says that the time for compromises are long past, and does not accept that limited action is better than no action. I guess I expect more from people like Al Gore, and I'm one of those that generally sees the glass as half empty - and hence my frustration.
Why bash Al Gore because he doesn't hold your particular cause in the forefront.
You are right that a vegan lifestyle would help the planet, but we need a lot more to save it.
Also, you are correct that he chooses to work within the system, but how much can be accomplished by an individual outside the system?
This constant criticism that Gore needs to do more is from those who have certainly done less.
You are probably "outside the system"
Why haven't you solved the world's environmental problems yet?
If you think Al Gore's motivation is to become rich from cap and trade, you have fallen for the common right wing smear campaign.
I had clearly said "I don't know if he personally stands to benefit from the cap and trade scheme..." I said that because others have mentioned it, and I never harped on that point, except to say that he was not highlighting its limitations. It's a sticking point in this whole debate with skeptics.
This article is *ABOUT* Al Gore - so I think some criticism is valid. Whereas on other articles which was about climate change, I did not elaborate on my criticism, and was in fact arguing with others who were denying or were skeptical of man-made climate change due to the presence of Al Gore in the forefront. Everything in context.
And I clearly said "IF you think.."
It is very strange that the man who gets the most criticism on Common Dreams next to Obama is Al Gore.
Not in the articles, but in the posts.
Think about it.
It is insanity.
Why is this "insane"? Leaders who are not criticized for their mistakes or refuse to listen and justify themselves to their followers' complaints have no right to be leaders of a grassroots movement, much less in charge of an entire democratic society.
Am I thankful that Gore raised the issue? Yes, even though I knew of it beforehand.
Does this mean I have to agree with his solution? No.
If I don't agree with his solution, should I resign myself to supporting it when the fate of millions of others are at stake and the alternative is nothing? Let's ask a different question; if I know there's a better solution, one that solves far more problems and leaves fewer loopholes, why am I settling for second best?
It is insane because Gore is trying harder than anyone to save the planet.
Who do you believe to be trying harder or doing more than Gore on the environment?
So the hatred and criticism and finger pointing strikes me as insane.
Since it all originates with Exxon Mobile, I guess I should just label it sad instead of insane.
Any criticism of Gore or AGW originates with Exxon Mobile? Thats the kind of statement that lends credence to their arguments.