EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Al Gore Blasts Obama On Climate Change For Failing To Take 'Bold Action'
WASHINGTON—Former Vice President Al Gore is going where few environmentalists -- and fellow Democrats -- have gone before: criticizing President Barack Obama's record on global warming.
Former Vice President Al Gore is going where few environmentalists -- and fellow Democrats -- have gone before: criticizing President Barack Obama's record on global warming. (File) In a 7,000-word essay for Rolling Stone magazine that will be published Friday, Gore says Obama has failed to stand up for "bold action" on global warming and has made little progress on the problem since the days of Republican President George W. Bush. Bush infuriated environmentalists for resisting mandatory controls on the pollution blamed for climate change, despite overwhelming scientific evidence that the burning of fossil fuels is responsible.
While Gore credits Obama's political appointees with making hundreds of changes that have helped move the country "forward slightly" on the climate issue, and acknowledges Obama has been dealing with many other problems, he says the president "has simply not made the case for action."
"President Obama has never presented to the American people the magnitude of the climate crisis," Gore says. "He has not defended the science against the ongoing withering and dishonest attacks. Nor has he provided a presidential venue for the scientific community ... to bring the reality of the science before the public."
The comments mark a turnaround for the nation's most prominent global warming advocate, whose work on the climate problem has earned him a Nobel Prize and was adapted into an Oscar-winning documentary.
Gore toasted Obama's inauguration with a "green" ball. He helped the White House press the House to pass a global warming bill in 2009 that would have set the first-ever limits on the pollution blamed for global warming. It died in the Democratic-controlled Senate. Gore also advised Obama before the president participated in international climate negotiations in 2009. Obama's last-minute appearance in Copenhagen helped salvage a nonbinding deal to reduce greenhouse gases.
In the essay, Gore calls the Copenhagen result a "rhetorical agreement" that provided cover for the administration's inability to commit to enforceable targets for global warming pollution. Without legislation, Obama couldn't follow through on his promises to cut emissions.
"During the final years of the Bush-Cheney administration, the rest of the world was waiting for a new president who would aggressively tackle the climate crisis, and when it became clear that there would be no real change from the Bush era, the agenda at Copenhagen changed from `How do we complete this historic breakthrough?' to `How can we paper over this embarrassing disappointment?' " Gore writes, referring to the talks, where 193 nations met to draft a new global treaty to reduce greenhouse gases. The 1997 Kyoto Protocol, in which the U.S. never participated and Gore helped to broker, expires in 2012.
Gore declined an Associated Press request for an interview.
Bush pulled out of Kyoto and refused to control heat-trapping pollution even after the Supreme Court said the government had the authority to move forward forcefully on this front and federal scientists determined that increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases posed dangers to human health.
Obama, by contrast, has tightened fuel economy standards to reduce global warming pollution from automobiles, included billions of dollars for climate-friendly projects in the economic stimulus package and started controlling emissions under existing law.
As recently as April, at a Democratic fundraiser in San Francisco, Obama said he was "not finished when it comes to energy."
Mentioning the climate deniers in Congress, Obama said, "Unless we are able to move forward in a serious way on clean energy, we're putting our children and grandchildren at risk."
Regardless of views such as Gore's, environmental voters may see little choice in the 2012 election. Those in the Republican field so far either deny global warming is a man-made problem altogether or say actions to address it would harm the economy. For Obama, the biggest risk is that some environmental voters may not turn out.
In his essay, Gore notes his comments could weaken Obama at a time when he already is under attack from Republicans.
"Even writing an article like this one carries risks," Gore says. "Opponents of the president will excerpt the criticism and strip it of context."
Bowing to political resistance from Republicans and some in his own party, Obama abandoned an effort and a campaign pledge to enact legislation that would put the first-ever limit on greenhouse gases.
In November, after Republicans took control of the House, Obama said in a news conference there were other ways to tackle global warming that wouldn't require new legislation.
"His election was accompanied by intense hope that many things in need of change would change," Gore writes. "Some things have, but others have not. Climate policy, unfortunately, falls into the second category."
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
92 Comments so far
Show AllObama's record on environmentalism is, actually, no worse than Gore's when the latter was Vice President. Only once he'd left Washington did Gore become a credible environmentalist.
If you recall, early in the first Clinton administration (1993), Gore did push for a broad-based carbon tax imposed at the wellhead or tipple - something that would be considered wildly radical today. It was quickly shot down, and after that, we heard little from Gore.
Standard Democrat strategy: Campaign on change and reform; attempt one change or reform once in office; fail; quash further change and reform.
Bill and Hillary both did the same themselves.
Let's compare apples to apples please. We're talking about Obama NOW and Gore NOW--and Obama is much worse on the environment than even G.W. He sabotaged Copenhagen, opened up more areas to drilling, and let BP off the hook for the biggest oil spill in history. This from a "progressive" president.
With the exception of Cheney, Vice Presidents have basically never had the power to make any changes unless the President was behind it. Perhaps that is why he became "credible" "once he'd left Washington".
"Gore toasted Obama's inauguration with a "green" ball. He helped the White House press the House to pass a global warming bill in 2009 that would have set the first-ever limits on the pollution blamed for global warming. It died in the Democratic-controlled Senate."
How about blasting the conservative Democrats that killed the bill and asking environmentalists to vote them out of office and vote for progressive Democrats whenever possible?
How about reading this: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/11/101011fa_fact_lizza
Does anyone still think Kerry, Lieberman, Emmanuel and Obama are liberal Democrats except for the hard right Republican conservatives?
Thanks for the link Z-Man.
Don't do a "red herring" on this issue, corvo. Mr. Gore is on the moral, correct, scientifically-backed side of this issue. Mr. Obama is not.
President O'Compromise has renigged on his pre-presidential positions. He deserves no quarter.
The woods are on fire, boys. It's time to stop arguing. Get to work and DO IT!
Mr. Gore is on the right side of the issue *now.* He wasn't *then.* And the reason why he *wasn't* has everything to do with why Obama *isn't* *now*: namely, the requirement of Washington politicians to serve their corporate masters.
Ignore the "red herring" and you fail to understand what's involved.
Dude. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Gore was called the Ozone Man by Bush I, don't you remember that? He held the first hearings on this issue in the Senate, don't you remember that? I'm not saying he's beyond reproach, but the things you're saying are just wrong. I mean wrong, as in incorrect.
No, actually, he talked a good game, sometimes, but did little as VP. And arguing from the perspective of Bush is, well, strange.
Right... he did little as VP, as if vice presidents set policy.
And claiming that I am arguing from the perspective of Bush, is, well, strange. Very strange.
Your comment here is basically the main idea of the essay by Mr. Gore. Did you read it?
Exactly dwyerj1,
Gore's film (An Inconvient Truth) was correct. Gore garnered the information for that film form some of the best scientific minds on the planet... Everything he predicted is now occurring as he stated except much faster than he or any scientists predicted and sea level rises have not occurred to any large degree yet,,, they will.
It does not matter one little bit what Gore is or how he lives his personal life. Gore's film was correct and Obama has done nothing to help with the issue.
jesus christ I am getting sick of the agonizing and time-wasting arguing that goes on forever in this forum! Look, I have been negative and defeatist with the best of you. It is damn near impossible not being negative about what we humans are doing to this planet. But what is the back & forth accomplishing? Nobody is completely a good guy or a bad guy! When we waste time arguing about who's worse, Bush...Gore...Obama...etc. we stop focusing on the real issue -- climate change! The fact is, all of us need to stay focused on how we contribute to global warming and how we are going to change our energy consuming habits. Believe me, I have spent many many years being angry about the crimes committed against our planet and the creatures living on it, and I am FINALLY beginning to realize that being angry accomplishes nothing. It may give us a sense of righteousness, and there is a release in venting the pain we feel, but anger and hatred do not bring us together to solve the problems. We have to approach everything and everybody with empathy and love ... yes I know that sounds hard. Even nauseating. How can we possibly find a way to embrace George Bush?! But you have to believe that everyone has the capacity to do good, to do the right thing. If we approach the issue without blaming people and putting them on the defensive, then we open our hearts and the hearts of those we are trying to talk to. When you know someone listens to you and approaches you in a loving and accepting way, don't you generally feel more accepting of them? Perhaps this sounds too touchy-feely to you. But that's just another wall we put up to keep us from having to do the hard work of connecting to people with our hearts.
Can you imagine if after 911 we sat down with the people who orchestrated the attack and just asked them why they did it? What were they feeling? What are their day to day lives like? And then we told them how we were feeling and how we live our lives? Wouldn't that have shook the world more than any war or any atomic bomb! I just believe something like that is possible. In fact, it has happened. Isn't there a woman in Sudan who opened her heart to the men who raped her and killed her family (something like that?) Can you imagine the extraordinary courage that took? If there is any hope for humanity, we have to learn from the actions of that woman.
singforpeace-
thank you
for the reminder that
it is I, Thou
Here, Now
I knew it would not take long for the Dem apologists to show up on this thread: do I hear an Amen from Lefty?
"Dem appologists," from what that guy said? Guess the bi-partisans have shown.
dwyerj1 - I agree completely.
I knew it would not take long for the "it's all a grand scam, anything short of wholesale revolutionary overthrow of the capitalist system by tomorrow @ 3 p.m. is a waste of time" absolutists to show up on this thread.
"you say there's going to be a revolution.."
Not in this ol' USofA babe. Too many of its inhabitants still think it's the greatest nation the world has ever seen.
Although Gore may be acquainted with the scientific assessment of our climatological predicament and its causes in industrial activity and does at times speak up, he is no way vociferous enough and seems to take his jolly time before his infrequent public interventions.
Get rid of that corporate suit, Al! Get down and dirty!
In all fairness, it's not his nature. He's not stupid, but he's never been intellectually quick on his feet, and he's not very good at public speaking (I suspect he hates doing it). He's a Moses in search of an Aaron.
All the world's a stage.
And they play their parts well.
That makes no sense. How would cutting the amount of fossil fuel emissions possibly hurt the planet?
I'm sure you have scads of evidence to substantiate your "what if" regarding global cooling. Have at it.
That, and your first and second paragraphs contradict each other quite blatantly. Either reducing fossil emissions is a bad thing to do, or it isn't. Which is it?
Chris,,, why don't you just knock it off?
When the atmospheric Co2 level is above the 340 ppm range it is time to be very concerned... It is now near 400 ppm and steadily and rapidly rising along with billions of tons of Ch4 entering the greenhouse gas mix every month and it is time to be frightened.
The sun does not have anything to do with global warming except sunbeams heat the planet. That heat escapes back into outer space,,, unless some is trapped by the more potent greenhose gases, such as Co2 and Ch4. When there is a high level of C02 and or Ch4 global warming is a serious problem. When they are low in ppm we have global cooling and when very low an ice age.
At one time in Earth's history the atmospheri Co2 level was very low and the planet was a ball of ice. The sun shone every day but it was a ball of ice for millions of years until volcanoes began once again to erupt in ernest and Co2 levels once again rose and the planet warmed again.
It's Co2, and Ch4, methane __Chris__, not sunbeams. Human activity has accomplished in 61 years what nature took millions of years to accomplish. In 1950 the atmoshperic Co2 level was 320 ppm, it steadly rose to over 394 ppm in just 61 years. That is phenominal in geological time. We burn too much coal Chris, too much oil and we are paying for it.
We are going to pay dearly unless some way is figured out how to reverse the situation if that is even possible Obama should take a leading role in doing that.
Umm, I'm not Chris. Learn to respond to the right person, mmmkay?
Did you see your name mentioned? I repleid to Chris, that is where it posted not my job. If you want to post a stupid complaint, take it to someone who cares.
One small correction.
In the late Proterozoic, during the hypothesized "snowball earth" ice age event, the sun's output was somewhat lower. Over the life of the earth, the Sun's output has increased, gradually and steadily, by 25 percent, and will continue over the next 4.5 billion years until it enters the red giant phase. This gradual heating is enough that, absent other factors, the earth should either have been too cold for life to evolve in the past, or should be too hot to be habitable today. Various hypotheses have been put forth, regarding planetary self-regulating mechanisms that prevented this, the most well-known one being Lovelock's Gaia (earth as an organism) hypothesis. Key in these theories is, of course, a fine self regulation of atmospheric CO2 levels, just as a living organism self-regualtes the chemistry that sustains it's own live.
Some scinetists speculate that the most clement period for life on earth is already past, and as soon as 700 my from now, the earth wil be too hot to support anything but hardy microbial life.
The importance of this to the present day is that, if anything, a runaway terminal global warming event (like Venus got subjected to early in its life) is more possible now than the geologic past, becasue the sun is a bit hotter than it was during the other carbon-budget disruptions in the past, such as the P-Tr mass extinction.
How does the maunder minimum fit into this? In general, how do sunspot pattern variations fit in? Perhaps the Sun, too Is a self-regulating organism? Perhaps the universe is a living organism hosting many other living organisms? Something other than carbon-based organisms? Solar plasma-based organisms? Perhaps the "intelligent designer" thesis (as opposed to darwinists & creationists) is on to something? Just wondering out loud, trying to stretch the box.
Galileo was the Western scientist who first reported the (dark) Sun Spots. He was lambasted for it because God could not have created dark spots on the beautiful Sun. Sure enough, when his observation was repeated quite a bit later there were no Sun Spots because there were few if any during the Maunder Minimum which had begun in the meantime. I have been involved in research on the causes for the 'Little Ice Age' and the Maunder Minimum . I can assure you that they have nothing to do with "intelligent design" even though the precise causes of the Little Ice Age and the MM are still not fully understood.
I have always been puzzled why the "intelligent designer" planned for the dinosaurs to exist and then sent a giant meteorite to collide with Earth to finish them off. That to me seems to be intelligent sadism.
Funny you should mention the Maunder minimum, the well documented "little ice age" that occurred 400 years ago. It coincided with an anomalously long period during which the regular 11 year sunspot cycle ceased.
Until recently, scientists had maintained that the little ice age had nothing to do with the sun's output, but recently that view has been challenged. The issue is that the sun's output is stronger when sunspots are present, so their absence during the Maunder Minimum may have been responsible for the cooling after all.
Back in the present: Coincidentally, the sun reached its 11 year sunspot hiatus several years ago, and should have been ramping back up since then, but it hasn't! Now scientists are speculating that we may be entering another prolonged period without sunspots.
But here's the kicker: in spite of the current lull in sun spots, which might have otherwise caused cooling, the Earth doesn't even seem to have noticed; it just keeps getting warmer.
See:
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/06/end-of-the-sunspot-cycle.html?etoc&elq=bd9deb6cb3ca472780d91d9e799addc2
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/05/did-quiet-sun-cause-little-ice-a.html?ref=hp
Thank you guys for responding thoughtfully. I hope future threads can be more like this.
PJD, life had already evolved prior to the Proterozoic period almost all sea life. Then for a million or so years there was little volcanic actiivity. The Co2 level dropped and it got cold. As there was only one land mass there was little sequestered Co2 or methane gas. That's how it works PJD,,, low Co2 = cold,, high Co2 = hot.
Mumble all you wish about sun spots, solar minimums and maximums but global warming and cooling are dependent upon the amount of (greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere. That is all you need to know and it is true now and will be true tomorrow and from now on.
r.chris, despite the overwhelming evidence regarding the causes of global warming there will no doubt always be skeptics. I don't know what it is going to take to convince every naysayer.. more massive forest fires, more floods, more mega tornadoes. Part of the problem we are facing and seldom mentioned is how we squander resources particularly energy. Just think one liter of gasoline moves a three thousand pound car fifteen kilometers. That's pretty awesome given the efficiency of the engine is just eighteen percent. Gasoline is amazing stuff along with the thousands of other products derived from oil. We are at or beyond peak oil. Many other resources face the same fate. Reducing consumption not only reduces CO2 emissions but also ensures that some of these resources will be available for future generations.
You don't read much, do you? Scientific consensus for human caused global climate destabilization is overwhelming and well documented. Try researching some science websites, instead of the right wing blogs.
"Scientists are the ones who promoted nuclear power generation as a harmless solution to the energy needs of the planet." So did a lot of poobahs of industry, who are now the same ones funding global warming denial. I am not ready to blindly follow industry-spawned denial so a few people can get rich.
---"Scientist are the ones who promoted nuclear power generation as a harmless solution to the energy needs of the planet."---
No, corporations, and their engineers did. You apparently know so little about science that you cannot distinguish a scientist from an engineer, or even a CEO.
At the end of WWII we had an over abundance of scientists and engineers as a result of research projects to build the atomic bomb. To keep these guys employed the USG promoted nuclear energy development.
I wonder, can you describe for us the scientific method? Can you define empirical evidence? Can you explain the fundamental difference between a pseudoscientific theory and a scientific theory?
"r.chris"
Human beings are responsible for a huge acceleration of carbon released into the environment.
The environment which has been made life as we know it possible on this planet depends upon a massive storage or containment of carbon. The planet was able to do this for many, many millennia, until humans began drastically altering the balance, mainly in the past few hundreds of years. We have become carbon-releasing predators of ever-increasing degradation.
We have destroyed the majority of the planet's forests.
We continue to increase the burning of coal.
We continue to increase the amount of petroleum we burn.
These three behaviors (and there are others) depend upon taking CARBON out of storage and releasing it into the atmosphere.
Is the simplicity of this fact too much for you to comprehend?
You mention clean air. Do you have any idea what you mean by "clean" air?
I don't think we're in any danger of "too rapid of change" in the direction of "cleaner" when in fact the rate of carbon emissions continues to increase.
People have every right to be condescending towards you, considering how your arguments do not reach the intellectual level of a five year old. your "what if" crap in the previous post was shamefully dumb and this "my way or the highway" thing is a strawman and a really infuriating one also - as you are accusing the environmentalists of the sins the side you are defending keep committing.
Thing is: no one is doing shit about global warming. Your "calm down" bullshit is just pure dumb patronizing cynicism - nothing is happening, while every fucking week we get a new study or a new heat record or record forest fire or whatever, and you dare to say that environmentalists are aggressive and want everything to be done their way? When not a single argument they make is taken seriously, let alone acted upon, you call on people not to panic? Knee jerk reactions? Wtf. I absolutely hate this attitude, when people are pretending, after completely disregarding the other side's arguments, that they shouldn't want more than the zero they already achieved. This is the same really offensive crap that pissed me off with the "let's be friends" GMO guy. Knee jerk reactions? Is arctic drilling without delay not one? Oh, we should go ahead with that one, but not conservation? Which is, you know, about actually not doing shit that may easily turn out to be harmful. Where the fuck do people like you get the courage to spout bullshit like you?
And how is your last sentence not a straight out lie?
I doubt any words of mine could change your mind if it hasn't been changed already. But I think your logic is backwards. I will grant that we can never be 100% sure of any scientific statement, including the statement that human activities are causing global warming. But the real question is what is the appropriate action.
Should we sit on our hands waiting for certainty when scientists are telling us that delays in acting now will lead to catastrophe? Or do we take reasonable steps now and do something?
There are many things we could be doing that make sense from other points of view. The biggest is to reduce our energy consumption through energy efficiency measures including weatherstripping, installing better windows, more efficient appliances, stricter building codes, higher mileage standards... These measures not only reduce GHGs but also reduce our dependence on fossil fuels much of which is imported and subject to the whims of international politics. And they'd make the US economy more productive and efficient.
We owe it to future generations, including our own children and grandchildren, to act now and act decisively.
Does this mean we should think before we take action that has clear and obvious risks? Is caution needed with GMOs? Tar sands and arctic drilling? Nuclear power? Or is it just about environmentalists that should be careful? It's not like environmentalism is the area where rash action has caused most damage so far. It's mostly everything else. So I find this argument appearing for this issue, and this one only, pretty disingenuous.
atomsk,
Well said.
These people that think like r.cris are major league bullshit artists. It's not so much that they are in denial about our overly stressed biosphere; it's their Orwellian application of language distortion at every turn. For example, the people on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission firmly believe the word "regulatory" really means "advocacy". Senator Bernie Sanders told them it wasn't their job to advocate for nuclear energy but they just played dumb in their transparent attempt to get the Justice Department to game the results of the Entergy lawsuit to keep Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant open in the face of the order to close by the State of Vermont.
In regard to Gore, I cannot accept his support of nuclear power as either "green" or "renewable". Although not mentioned in this article, Tennessee is a hot bed of support for nuclear power. When Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" movie/slide show came out, I could not help but feel that his version of power generation on earth is 90% nuclear and 10% solar window dressing. The Vermont Yankee water contaminated with Tritium (about 150,000 gallons at last count) is being sent to Tennessee for "reprocessing" and clean up. Another externalized cost of nuclear energy that Gore is silent as a tomb about. Tennesse is Gore's home state.
I will trust him when he comes out against nuclear power. Until then, I fear he is using the real scientific data which confirms global warming to push nuclear power poison for corporate profit.
His critique of Obama is rather silly. Of course Obama is a corporate shill. What else is new? To claim Obama "hasn't done enough" for the evironment when Obama's down in the approval ratings and headed for a one term presidency just smacks of opportunism. Gore should be screaming for Obama's impeachment instead of trying to position himself as a possible replacement of Obama in the democratic presidential nomination.
I hope new polls about how the people of the world feel about energy are read by Gore so he can shit can his nuclear lobbyist hat.
What would Al Gore say about this recent poll?:
"In the wake of new nuclear power plant build rebukes in both Germany and Italy, a new poll conducted by international research company Ipsos for Reuters News finds that global support for nuclear energy has dropped quickly to 38% (down 16 points from 54%) to now become lower than support for coal (48%)—fuelled by a 26% jump in new opponents to nuclear power (above 50% in India, China, Japan and South Korea) who indicate that the recent crisis in Japan caused their decision. Ipsos also released a detailed power point presentation of their findings. The survey of nearly 19,000 people in 24 countries also showed that nearly three-quarters of people think nuclear energy is only a limited and soon obsolete form of energy. Solar energy topped the charts with 97% of respondents strongly favoring it, closely followed by 93% for wind power."
http://www.beyondnuclear.org/
>>OK the globe is warming, but why?
>>Is it humankind or is the sun or something else causing the increase?
>>Until we know the answer.....
We do know the answer. The current climate change science is conclusive. There is a mountain of evidence that shows that human activity is the primary cause (see the second link below). The "uncertainty" you speak of is simply propaganda floated by the pollution industries.
The Union of Concerned Scientists comprises about 11,000 scientists, including about 2000 climatologists, 8 nobel prize winners, 32 National Academy of Science members, and 11 MacArthur "Genius" award recipients.
They have issued a statement on the matter, and the first sentence reads:
"The Earth is warming and human activity is the primary cause."
See:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/global-warming-human.html
Show me similar support (beyond kooks, fiction writers, talking heads on that cesspool known as Fox news, spokespeople for oil companies and congresscritters with oil company cash stuffed in their pockets) for humans not contributing to climate change. Until you can come up with something beyond the random kook or non-scientist, non-climatologist talking head on TV stating that the science isn't "conclusive", you are simply regurgitating pollution industry propaganda. I'll stick with the 2000+ mainstream climatologists who actually conduct research in the field of climate science.
r. chris,
Your response is enough to make me scream out loud! There IS an overwhelming scientific consensus! The consensus regarding the human CO2 emissions causing global warming is about as unaminous as Newton's Laws.
Will you please go to the Rolling Stone website and read the article?
Alternatviely, if you are a paid fossil fuel industry troll, please go away.