Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
An Inconvenient Solution: Al Gore's "Our Choice"
Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth was one of the high points not
only of the environmental movement but also of the documentary tradition
in America. He figured out how to use a new medium, PowerPoint, to take
the unavoidably wonkish story of global warming and make it scary,
credible and manageable. It was, perhaps, as important as anything he
could have done as president, and he deserved not only the Oscar but
also the Nobel.
As almost everyone noted at the time, however, there was one problem
with the film: the section on what to actually do about the biggest
problem we've ever faced was remarkably short, both in duration and on
plausible ideas. If the world is coming to an end, changing your light
bulb doesn't seem like the obvious response. Or rather, it seems highly
obvious but highly insufficient--a gesture, not a solution.
Gore heard those criticisms and spent the next few years convening a series of more than thirty "Solutions Summits" in Nashville and elsewhere, where he picked the brains of virtually everyone who ever thought professionally about climate and energy. He's taken all those data and all those ideas, and with the help of a capable team of researchers he's turned them into a book, Our Choice, an ambitious and entirely successful attempt to lay out all that we know about mainstream answers to global warming. (When I say "virtually everyone," I mean it; the acknowledgments take up four pages of agate type and include even me.) He's got chapters on solar electricity, on wind energy, on biofuels, on nuclear power and even on more recondite topics: geothermal energy, carbon sequestration.
Occasionally, truth be told, the book verges on the nerdy. There are diagrams on topics like "how a turbine works" that could have come from an old-fashioned encyclopedia. Gore has a weakness for statistics: did you know that between 1984 and 1991 nine early concentrated solar thermal power plants were built in the Mojave Desert with a total of 2 million square meters of mirrors? Some of the vast book is taken up with what amounts to more PowerPoint slides--beautiful but stock images of farmers or roaring hurricanes. (If you like gorgeous windmill porn, this is your book.)
Taken as a whole, however, this is the most comprehensive and well-informed survey anyone has ever done of what we need to do to get off fossil fuel. Gore is judicious and reasoned at every turn, and gets most of the calls exactly right. Building more traditional nuclear power plants will be too expensive to provide much help. Ditto carbon sequestration: it's a good idea to try and take the exhaust from coal-fired power plants and store it underground in old oil wells, but the costs so far seem prohibitive. In fact, to many of these dilemmas Gore applies a wise test: "Put a high price on carbon. When the reality of the need to sharply reduce CO2 emissions is integrated into all market calculations--including the decisions by utilities and their investors--market forces will drive us quickly toward the answers we need."
Gore, I think, has reasonably answered not only the one apt criticism of An Inconvenient Truth but also the good-faith (as opposed to talk-radio) objections of anyone wondering if the world really could exist without fossil fuels. The answer is, not easily, but it's well within the realm of technical possibility. If we followed his advice, we'd make it. What's lacking, of course, is the political will to really do it.
And if there's one weakness this time around, it's that Gore could have devoted a little space to figuring out how we should build that political will. If we're going to impose a price on carbon at the Copenhagen conference, or pass a strong renewables target in Congress, or do any of the dozen or so other things the situation desperately demands, reasoned argument among experts alone will not carry the day. In fact, it won't come close. We've known, more or less, what to do for more than a decade, but any progress has been stymied, especially in this country, by the well-funded deniers propped up by the coal and oil industries, and by the pliant and gullible media that continue to give them play. Simply adding a few thousand more tons of scientific reports to the environmental side of the scale won't tip the debate, not when Exxon can afford to buy the necessary coterie of Congress members. The only thing that will suffice is to build a movement strong enough in some other currency (bodies in the street, votes in the ballot box) to provide serious counterpressure.
Of course, it is not Gore's job to provide this pressure (and, in any event, his Alliance for Climate Protection has been a useful attempt to build some). The guy's not responsible for coming up with absolutely every answer to every part of this problem--and the good news, in the past few months, is that many others are stepping into this realm. I've been watching climate policy closely for twenty years, and only now does the planet's immune system seem to be kicking in: civil society has finally recognized global warming for the overarching threat it is, and has begun to go to work.
The parts I've gotten to watch most closely have been the international efforts. In the past eighteen months, my fellow activists and I have built 350.org, the first real global grassroots climate change campaign, which peaked on October 24 with a global day of action. That day featured thousands upon thousands of events in more than 150 countries--it may have been the most geographically widespread day of political action the planet has ever seen. (And it was almost certainly the only one devoted to a point of scientific fact: 350 parts per million carbon dioxide is what scientists now tell us is the most the earth's atmosphere can safely hold, at least if we want a planet "similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on earth is adapted.") It was, truth be told, quite amazing fun to watch the campaign come together--young people around the world, clergy, scientists all dreaming up powerful ways to take those three digits, arguably the most important number in the world, and make them the most well-known.
There were underwater cabinet meetings (in the Maldives, led by President Mohamed Nasheed, whose nation may not exist in a hundred years) and climbers on the melting slopes of the world's highest peaks. There were thousands of churches ringing their bells 350 times and giant actions in major cities where people formed 3s and 5s and 0s with their bodies, a kind of planet-scale Scrabble. It began in New Zealand and went around the world till sunset in Hawaii--and since it was tied not to a slogan but to a specific demand, it may help move the Copenhagen talks at least a little in the direction of the science. But this kind of movement will need to continue and grow. We'll need civil disobedience, of the kind that blockaded Congress's coal-fired power plant last spring; we'll need symbolic witness, like 350.org; we'll need old-fashioned lobbying.
We also learned a lot of lessons about organizing globally, something that wasn't really possible even a few years ago. The power of the Internet is less in the gee-whiz stuff Gore describes (real-time pictures of the earth so that everyone can see its fragile beauty) but in the ability to use it, à la the Obama campaign in 2008, as a tool to enable events in the real world. At 350.org we're running a website with fourteen languages and using wordless animated videos; our sense is that it's possible for the idea of a "global movement" to be something more than pious rhetoric. On this toughest of all issues we were able to find millions of people on both sides of the rich-poor divide who understood that they have a great deal in common, beginning with the shared awareness that nowhere on the planet is safe once we're north of 350 ppm. It's moving--humbling, really--when someone sends you pictures from their rally in Cameroon or Burundi or Quito or Phnom Penh. Humbling because you know they did nothing to cause the problem but have come to realize that in a world newly wired together, they might be able to play some real role in solving it.
Gore ends his book with a lovely speech from the future, looking back on what was accomplished after "the turning point came in 2009" with "the inauguration of a new president in the United States." Former opponents, impressed with the president's sincerity and moved by the questions of their children, began to link arms in the struggle for a clean-energy future, and soon the right incentives were unleashed, new technology began to pour off the line, even passenger rail surged again across the land. "Although leadership came from many countries, once the United States finally awakened to its responsibilities, it reestablished the moral authority the world had come to expect from the U.S. during the 40 years after World War II."
That's a very pleasant dream, especially for someone like Gore, who was a firsthand witness to the period of American leadership he describes. But as he knows as well as anyone, at the moment it's nothing more than a dream. Making it real will depend on how hard we push the system. There's no question it's capable of responding, and no question that left to its own devices it won't.
Our Choice by Al Gore
- Posted in
73 Comments so far
Show AllI suspect the solutions at the end of AIT were deliberately kept modest in order to pre-empt the inevitable cries of "global warming is all just a conspiracy by socialist fascists to frighten us into creating their one world socialist fascist government". It didn't work....
And why again must we the people push DEM, including vicious hypocrite, Gore? After all, they KNOW the stakes; we hired them to Do THE JOB; and they're STILL faking it! Never forget, it was the Clinton/Gore regime that let the Big 3 renege on their $Billions of taxpayer money for delivering electric cars by 1995!! Like everyone in millenial halfascist Amerika, his book "fighting words" was written just for the funds of it!!!
I'm afraid that the only thing that will stop US from setting Gaia on fire is economic collapse of the US, India and China. We have to become so poor that we can't afford to buy new cars and toasters and and and...food. Too poor to be able to have kids. Because that's the bottom line. 6 billion people is 5 billion too many. Like a virus that has been so successful that it's killed it's host. Climate Change is Gaia's immune system kicking in, she's running a fever.
Do you know anyone that would advocate for prohibiting procreation? Certainly not anyone that would face voters. No matter what fancy rhetoric anyone can come up with, it's overpopulation that drives most of the world's problems, most particularly Climate Change.
You are right on.
6 billion people in the world means that most of them will live in misery.
Soon the planet won't be able to support any where near that number.
Ocean depletion is a huge factor, since for years that has supported the population growth in a completely unsustainable way.
The most altruistic endeavor for mankind as a whole is birth control, but that is not a popular view.
There was an actual experiment in a remote part of India where people did not have ready access to medical care. Children were given a drink of clean rice water with molasses. Childhood diarrhea stopped, children stopped dying, and the birthrate immediately dropped precipitously. The researchers estimated at the time (1970's) that this concoction could be provided worldwide for about USD 250 million, which at the time was about the amount being spent in the U.S. to advertise tobacco.
.
Likewise there is a simple solution to carbon emissions. Make public transit free, and gradually eliminate the private auto and concomitant sprawl.
.
http://frepubtra.blogspot.com
.
CV says, "I'm afraid that the only thing that will stop US from setting Gaia on fire is economic collapse of the US, India and China".
I wish that was true. Unfortunately, due to the boundless greed and predatory nature of our ruling class, the economic collapse will occur to the non-ruling classes but the Buffetts, Geithners, Shapiros, Blankfeins and Bernakes will continue business as usual.
Never forget the logic of rich pigs; the more desperate the times, the cheaper the labor and the greater the profit. The rich will have plenty of volunteers to man the castle ramparts to kill those beggars that get too close. Police? Ha! A rich man kils people and the police will call it self defense because he is defending "his" property.
The rich won't change. The only system that keeps those pigs in check and can keep humanity viable is socialism. It's not perfect but at least it would put a damper on greed and provide universal birth control as well.
As for energy, geothermal can get us 80% of the way there. Most energy use is for heating and cooling (NOT transportation). Geo-thermal can solve that without generating CO2 and can also be used to charge batteries for electric machines such as cars and trucks. The other 20% can be provided by wind and solar.
But it won't happen. Here's why. Every rich capitalist lives by the dream of the captive market and a perpetual sream of profit generating revenue. To this end, they devise "business models" exactly ass backwards from sustainable, environmentally friendly, independent solutions. In their troglodyge thinking, the very idea that the average chump won't need to "go back for more" (gasolene, viagra or other drugs, a new car, appliance, computer, face lift, etc. every two years) is heresy to these monsters. Forget providing a service. They want to addict you to their products. The government goes along because it taxes the products. When you can get your energy out of the ground, it's harder to tax than at the gas pump (I'm sure they'll find a way to tax you for being self-sufficient, but it will be more difficult). That explains the government's reticence to subsidize geothermal installations in private homes through tax breaks. The government doesn't give a damn about the environment. They only care about their tax revenue. When things get blatent like poisoned water or air, the government pretends concern. Bullshit. The inability of the government to connect the dots is deliberate. They do not want an independent populace. They want a dependent populace. Dependence is killing the planet. They do not care.
So you see the REAL problem is the massive resistance of capitalism to the destruction of it's consumerist business model. No, it's not population. No, it's not politics. All these are straw men. Yes, it's profits for rich pigs. That is the problem. Socialism is the answer. If you don't like it, tough shit. Even the rich are practicing a form of socialism amongst themselves by banding together in gated communities to get cheaper security and access to high quality services, energy and living conditions. They get it. They just don't want us to get it.
brilliant
Thank you, sir.
It's too bad we can't get a posting like that into the "How-It-Works" web site for Capitalism-in-the-real-world. Our economist financial system shills would get into a tizzy if they knew their "secret" was out.
Maybe someone will come up with a "How it REALLY works" web site. That would be educational and entertaining.
Yes we the working class must give up our cars, change our light bulbs so that we feel at work while at home and yes cut down on food consumption. Let us all wait for al gore to fly in on his personal jet and driven to give his speech on a limo and after he may dine on caviar and lobster while dictating what we are doing wrong. Is there something wrong with this picture? Seriously we are falling for this?
Seriously we are falling for this?
----------------
Catastrophic Climate Change is the issue, not Al Gore.
Mr. Gore is merely one of the messengers.
The belief that we must reject the science, and the resulting change necessary to prevent worst case scenarios, because Al Gore is an imperfect human being is right-wing garbage.
What we are not falling for is your faulty logic.
Thank You!!!!
I am baffled at the attacks on Al Gore.
He's not perfect so he's the problem?
Are these people buying into Exxon Mobile smear campaigns?
Good article Mr. McKibben.
The CD articles are almost always favorable towards Al Gore.
The posters are 90% negative.
Al Gore along with Bill Clinton are War Criminals, which is why there's a lot of negative musings toward Gore, and rightly so.
You were not around for the Battle in Seattle, were you? It was Clinton and Gore's whoring for corporations, shoving NAFTA down our throats, WTO, etc. - that's we demonstrated against. If Gore has turned around 180 degrees, good for him. It's just that there isn't a lot of evidence for it. According to snopes "Tale of Two Houses," Gore does not live the lifestyle of an environmentalist. I know, I know, I'm a "purist."
And yes, he is at least free to speak the truth now. No one who is president or VP, is allowed to do that. And I do appreciate his calling attention to a grave issue. But where are his solutions? And why. Is he in favor of repealing NAFTA, ending globalization? What does Gore have to say about the most environmentally destructive political decision in history, NAFTA?
You may find some of Gore's motivation here:
http://www.operationmindseed.com/?p=2353
"So there you have it – LaSalle proposed a way of solving the CO2 issue but was basically told to shove it by Gore’s team because the methods he advocated would eliminate the need for what Gore and his cronies are really pursuing, nightmare regulation, taxation, and control over American’s lives, along with billions of dollars flooding into the coffers of Gore and the rest of the “carbon billionaire” globalists via the carbon trading systems they own."
Ditto what you said.
You may be right. Some of us are over reacting, eh? Could be it's left over animosity from Al Gore's tenure as Senator, receiving a "D" grade, 64% lifetime environmental rating from the League of Conservation Voters - not a radical group of people by the way. John Kerry's score is over 95%! That's why it's laughable to consider Gore an environmentalist. There's proof he isn't.
NAFTA has been called the largest factor contributing to world environmental degradation! Do you think NAFTA was an act of God? No, actual people designed it and promoted it. Gore was its champion, if you remember. Gore's promotion of nuclear energy frightened us, and the telecommunications act horrified us. Pulling the Democratic Party to the right, via big corporations and the DLC, disgusted us. I could go on. So while you worship your new manufactured hero, have some compassion for what Gore put us and our environment through. Maybe you were too young to remember, or you weren't involved in the environmental movement back then. I worked for a major environmental organization. No one was happy with Gore. Under Clinton/Gore, more trees were cut than under Bush. The Salvage Rider, etc.
It pains me to watch, year after year, the bar moving lower and lower to the ground. Again, not an act of God. This is by design.
The first president of the Sierra Club, David Brower, left that organization to found Friends of the Earth and the Earth Island Institute. He left Sierra because of their support for nuclear power, which they now oppose, but which Gore continued to support. In 2000, just before his death, Mr. Brower proudly voted for Ralph Nader. As an environmentalist, he couldn't support Gore. He saw the effect of Al Gore's agenda on the environment.
So make a hero out of him if you must. I don't trust his motives. Considering his record, why should I? After the book came out I thought to myself and said to my wife: Just wait, we're going to see skyrocketing rates of petitions for new nuclear power plants. Sure enough, that's exactly what has happened.
Hopefully, we all evolve toward enlightenment. Is it not just possible that the man, as he matured, came to a more enlightened view of the world?
If a person is sincerely working for a good cause, is it wise to denigrate that work because he has not for all of his life held those views and even may have done harm in the past? I read here what seems to me to be mean spirited attacks on someone who appears to be trying to be part of the solution. dh
"Is it not just possible that the man, as he matured, came to a more enlightened view of the world?"
Of course, it is entirely possible that Gore, having left politics for journalism and teaching, is beginning to see the world through a new lens. I don't know him personally. My comments were to try and give you an idea of why many of us fall into an automatic negative response whenever his name comes up. We felt such betrayal from Clinton and Gore. I have to give Gore credit now, he says nuclear energy is too expensive to be considered a viable energy source. I would add, "dangerous" as another good reason.
Remember, once you've been so blatantly betrayed, you would like at least an apology - NAFTA comes to mind - from those who were at fault. I don't hear that coming from Gore so I imagine he's still, like Obama, a free trader.
"Whenever we compromised, we lost." Arch Druid, David Brower
Sure, people make mistakes, learn, evolve. All the more reason to implement the hippocratic oath at the federal level. It's better that public servants do nothing instead of making colossal mistakes as "learning opportunities" at great expense of societies and the biosphere, particularly considering that most of these political questions were answered in the west since the time of Plato. Clinton/Gore jammed NAFTA through while East Asia and Europe diligently protected their domestic industries. Not one sliver of light shone on that in the USA. Why not? Today, it's obvious. How many more decades of elite idiocy?
"{Gore} figured out how to use a new medium, PowerPoint, to take the unavoidably wonkish story of global warming and make it scary"
I think I found your problem....
The first version of PowerPoint was initially developed on 14 August 1984 by Robert Gaskins and Dennis Austin of Forethought, Inc. of Sunnyvale, California
So if a 25 year old software program is considered "new", what hope do you have of coming up with a solution to ANYTHING?
THAT is what is scary.
Most every software application has been repeatedly re-re-re-invented for the last two decades, until Bill Gates finally released a version of Windows that wasn't a total piece of shit.
Also, the computer graphics industry took decades of porn-driven developments to reach the graphics capabilities available today.
In 1984, you couldn't have shown squat from Gore's AIT on the first version of PowerPoint.
Thank you Bill McKibben. This is exactly why I voted for Nader over Gore in 2000. Anyone can write fluff and puff but when one is elected to office, it is his duty to prove that he is what he claims to be by actually fighting for the cause win or lose rather than sitting like a fat slob in office and then blaming his opponents when he loses credibility for going hypocritical on both his legislation and even his own personal preferences. As Peter Schweitzer once said of hypocrites "Do as I say, not as I do!".
"...once the United States finally awakened to its responsibilities, it reestablished the moral authority the world had come to expect from the U.S. during the 40 years after World War II." shhheesshhh! Now that is fiction.
I only hope that some of the blithering nonsense on posts like these can be flushed away - not recycled - and we can follow Al Gore's lead on dealing with these problems.
Mujeriego, how does the date of the invention of PowerPoint lessen the value of Gore's ideas? He has used a still-useful tool not only to educate others, but to train other volunteers around the country to deliver the same lecture. Seems like a positive contribution to me.
Pablo30, is that number your I.Q.? (Actually, it could be that of boysgramps.) Where does Gore talk about "cutting down on food consumption"? And of course you know for certain that he dines on "caviar and lobster"! Did Limbaugh, Hannity, or Beck feed that into your cerebral cavity? By the way, he flies commercial, not private, and he has refurbished his home to be more energy-efficient and "green", if you will. He is an example of someone who puts his money where his mouth is. And all without taking away your cars or your lightbulbs!
And Jennifer Bedingfield strikes again with her usual lack of rational thought. The point is, my dear, that Gore has been more successful at addressing the issue of climate change head-on, WITHOUT the burdens or constraints of elective office. From his 1991 book "Earth in the Balance" to the present day, he has strived hard to follow ideas with solutions. That is the point of "Our Choice."
What opponent has Al Gore been blaming for anything? This is a man who is at peace with himself. In fact, your pin-up hero Ralph Nader showed up at one of Gore's book signings, no doubt in a desperate grab at 15 more minutes of fame. Gore could not have been more gracious, even inscribing the book, "To my friend Ralph Nader." We can safely say that the "fat slob" (as you so childishly describe Gore) has more credibility around the world than your idol could ever dream of. That must be why poor ol' Ralph is so bitter and self-absorbed!
Al Gore received the Nobel Peace Prize - well-deserved! Nader got a pie in the face (a worthy successor to the late Soupy Sales). That says a lot!
good job tmchacko
most of the comments on here are about people shooting off their mouths in an attempt to prove to themselves that they are superior to those they are commenting on
it is not useful, it is short sighted, it is destructive, and it is certainly not in their own self interest
Thanks, djb!
You should read some of the previous Common Dreams postings dealing with Nader!
"And Jennifer Bedingfield strikes again with her usual lack of rational thought. The point is, my dear, that Gore has been more successful at addressing the issue of climate change head-on, WITHOUT the burdens or constraints of elective office. From his 1991 book "Earth in the Balance" to the present day, he has strived hard to follow ideas with solutions. That is the point of "Our Choice.""
Oh don't you wish ! Name one legislation that was pro-environmental and Gore supported and fought for win or lose. His own record while governing shows nothing but his support for mainly anti-environmental legislation. Go back and examine his legislation. Better yet, go back to the 2000 archives on this site where plenty of people wrote about Gore's real record as a faux "environmentalist". If Gore has more "credibility" around the world then people don't know his real record and are only relying on his fluff and puff talk and books. Any silly dilly can write a book and rant but when elected to serve, it was his responsibility to use his powers to fight for saving the environment, not side with the corporate shills. Ralph Nader had a hell of a lot more to show for his talk but the cornfed electorate persecuted him unfairly. Better to choose mediocre hot air quality lame brains over top quality progressives isn't it? Spare us the sludge !
"Al Gore received the Nobel Peace Prize - well-deserved! Nader got a pie in the face (a worthy successor to the late Soupy Sales). That says a lot!"
PFFT ! LOL ! Nobel Peace prize well deserved? Well, considering that Barry gets one for continuing the wars and occupations against those sweetheart civilians, fine ! You can laugh all you want about Nader getting a pie in his face but he's not the one who lost. The losers are those who fell for choosing among the two party duopoly election after election and drowning themselves in more poverty, wars, environmental damage, etc... Future generations in this country and around the world will HATE YOU for voting for more wars of aggression and continued crushing of the working class. Where's Algore when Wall $treet was being bailed out or when legislative efforts to encourage and reward fuel efficiency and conservation were killed? Algore can be a silly dilly clown on the tubes and I wouldn't be laughing ! Please go back and study the issues and learn to use your heart and mind wisely so that maybe next time you'll have the guts to judge a book by its contents and not its cover.
As I said, Al Gore is a man at peace with himself. (He'd have to be, to treat Nader in such a civilised, classy way.) If only you were. Talk about a "rant"!
Would you say that the Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters are "lamebrains" for having endorsed the Clinton-Gore Administration? Perhaps they were not 100% satisfied, but they "used their hearts and minds wisely" (your sage advice) and looked at the overall record, with good reason.
For six out of eight years, the Clinton-Gore team had to do battle every day with a Republican Congress, including all of the phony investigations. (That smelly impeachment drive was supported by Ralph Nitwit - his way of polluting the environment!) Aided by Carol Browner at the EPA (Gore's choice) and Bruce Babbitt at Interior, Clinton/Gore left a good record of environmental achievement, much of it by going over the GOP's heads via Executive Order. I remember their tantrums! Gore, in fact, led the way on cutting paperwork and bureaucracy (the "Reinventing Government" initiative) in order to facilitate some of these actions.
Here's a PARTIAL list:
-- Giving the EPA added power to nail polluters;
-- Preserving nearly 5 million acres of land for national monuments and parks;
-- Protection of the Alaska Wildlife Refuge (designated by Jimmy Carter);
-- Extending the moratorium on offshore oil leases;
-- Cleaning up nearly 700 Superfund sites;
-- Extension and protection of wetlands (such as the Florida Everglades);
-- Protecting national forests from road building and cutting;
-- Banning dumping of toxic waste at sea;
-- Strengthening the Safe Drinking Water Act;
-- Signing the Food Quality Safety Act;
-- Adopting a uniform tailpipe standard and reducing sulfur levels in gasoline;
-- Phasing out of DDT, chloroflourocarbons, and other pollutants;
-- Higher efficiency standards for household appliances;
-- Protecting coral reefs and marine sanctuaries;
-- Protection of 170 endangered species, such as the Bald Eagle and Pacific Salmon.
To repeat, this is a partial list. One would think that "unfairly persecuted" Uncle Ralphie might at least be mildly pleased, since some of these built on things he was advocating beforehand. Gore, whether you like it or not, took the lead within the administration by following up on what he had been calling for in the House and Senate. Put the blame for any shortcomings where it belongs: on the Republican Congress, including the failure to ratify the Kyoto Treaty, and the cutting of funds for the UN Fund for Population Activities. (And contempt for the UN in general!) Do remind me, who was in office for eight years after Clinton/Gore?
Vice President Gore also led the efforts to provide local communities with money to enhance public transportation, ease traffic congestion, preserve open green space, and clean up "brownfields". (Not to mention the Gore Commission on Airline Security, the recommendations of which might have prevented 9/11. The GOP, in the pocket of the airline industry, rejected them outright, only to implement them after the fact!)
If this doesn't make your cut, Jennifer, well, life is tough! Pick away, find fault, and apply your customarily sound analytical powers: "Pfft! Silly dilly! and Fluff and puff!" And please try to come up with a riposte other than "lamebrain"! Yes, I have "the guts to judge a book by its contents" - hence my support of Al Gore. Pat yourself on the back and keep thinking of the rest of the country and the world as "cornfed" (?) and ignorant.
Trust me, I'm not afraid of being "HATED" by future generations. Will I be in a position to care? When my time comes I, too, will be at peace having given life my best shot, and that includes making the right choices. The ranting of folks like you and other "progressives" reinforces my belief that my choices should remain apart from yours.
"As I said, Al Gore is a man at peace with himself. (He'd have to be, to treat Nader in such a civilised, classy way.) If only you were. Talk about a "rant"!"
Algore is part of the ruling class and is nice and comfy mooching off of taxpayer money so of course he's in "peace" with himself while the rest of us are in sludge. I proudly voted for Nader thrice because Nader actually stood for what was right while Algore was all no talk and no play.
"For six out of eight years, the Clinton-Gore team had to do battle every day with a Republican Congress,..."
Oh please ! NAFTA was passed when the Democrats had strong majorities in both houses of Congress during Clinton's first two years. Clinton could have easily vetoed anti-environmental legislation but he didn't. In fact, where was AlGore when Clinton was playing kissyface with Big Auto in giving them money to "voluntarily" improve their fuel efficiency? Why did Algore praise the DEA for bombing out the hemp fields in South Dakota when hemp could have been used to curb global warming? Why didn't Algore bother to lead the fight against HOA that was responsible for his being unable to go green on his big mansion? Why is he still teaming up with T Boone Pickens and buying into "clean coal" and "safe nuclear".
As to your "partial list" and executive orders, most of that was just a last minute stunt during Clinton's LAME DUCK session. Of course Dubya reversed it and played his own politics but why didn't Gore and the Democrats fight back? As for Kyoto, both parties overwhelmingly voted against it and Gore stood mum. That too goes to show that the two party duopoly is nothing more than the perfect set of corporate puppets.
"Vice President Gore also led the efforts to provide local communities with money to enhance public transportation, ease traffic congestion, preserve open green space, and clean up "brownfields"."
Oh really? Then why is there more traffic jam hell in the suburbs and inner cities while the public transportation infrastructure continues to decay? Why didn't Gore say that he did it? Did he do it after 2000? Please provide a link on that.
"If this doesn't make your cut, Jennifer, well, life is tough! Pick away, find fault, and apply your customarily sound analytical powers"
Oh, kiss my ass ! I don't concede to crap in the faux name of "compromise". Yeah, life is tough and I've faced persecutions from both the Obamabots and Limbaugh dittoheads from shouting to getting beaten at but I never back down and I'm proud of it. We here at CD have every right to perform tough litmus tests of pols calling themselves "liberal" and/or "progressive".
"Pat yourself on the back and keep thinking of the rest of the country and the world as "cornfed" (?) and ignorant. "
I don't have to pat myself on the back when you just admitted your own utter lack of understanding.
"Trust me, I'm not afraid of being "HATED" by future generations. Will I be in a position to care? When my time comes I, too, will be at peace having given life my best shot, and that includes making the right choices. The ranting of folks like you and other "progressives" reinforces my belief that my choices should remain apart from yours."
What childish nonsense and blissful ignorance ! It's people like you and Joe the Plumber who keep Main Street holding the bag while Wall $treet continues to laugh its ways to the bank ! You go talk to the young people here in this country who are finding out that most Democrats are just as bad as most Republicans in selling this nation out and try talking to the sweetheart civilians in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, etc... who are losing their lives or getting seriously injured because both parties continue the wars of aggression. You tell them what you told me and see how you like it when they say "I HATE YOU" for ruining their lives and future !
Jennifer,
Your cool, reasoned thought and rapier wit are priceless! Get together with Tom Larsen for a cold cup of coffee and help him relieve that "icky feeling." Maybe he can help you deal with that persecution complex, and your fantasies of getting shouted at, beaten up, and your delusions of "rescuing the world" (your earlier words) from us "lamebrains".
No, I've no desire to kiss your ass - in any case your head is already in the way.
When at a loss for reasoned arguments, bring out the ad-hominem!
Michael Parenti has said that the dissident opinion is often correct as it is heavily scrutinized and must square with objective reality, whereas the mainstream, paradigmatic view is blissfully free from such encumbrances.
Civilized and classy? Adjectives to describe behavior you might consider aspiring to tmchacko. Resorting to vulgar insults belies your arguments. I notice you didn't address the rebuttals Jennifer made in her last post. Nor did you consider comments by AGG, rtdrury and Boyd Collins in your original litany of insults to other posters. How lucky you are to be so sure that you have given life your best shot, and oh yes, that includes making all the right choices. You can give thanks next week as you eat, drink and be merry. The system is broken, the American empire is in decline and global suffering is approaching critical mass. Maybe you will be eternally at peace when the changes come, but your children will probably be here to experience them and I doubt they will remember the inadequate and self-serving efforts of Al Gore and other neoliberals who mistake themselves for reformers, no matter how well-intentioned they may be. The road to hell...
Desmoulins,
To explain (please read slowly): "civilised and classy" was my description of Al Gore's treatment of Ralph Nader - far more than what the latter deserved! But perhaps I should be chastened for sinking to the level of so many writers here.
At this point I've no expectation of progress in this otherworld so I'll ask flat out: Do some of you have problems with Reading Comprehension? In response to Jennifer's earlier hysteria, I had offered sound reasons for supporting Al Gore's efforts. In return I got yet another diatribe from someone who regards contrary opinions as those of a "lamebrain" and a "silly dilly". (How profound!) Check out some of Jennifer's earlier postings on Common Dreams, especially those dealing with the saintly Mr Nader. Contrary to her raving, no one has tried to stifle her opinions or engage in any "persecution." In fact, Common Dreams is safe territory for her. And the exchange about "life" was in response to her ranting that I'll be "hated" by future generations for my choices. Listen carefully, I did not say I was done yet with life. Compris?
Some of the other posters you've cited at least offer some useful information. Yes, all of us could learn - except the Nader supporters who have the monopoly on wisdom, integrity, and patriotism, some of whom would make my last posting look like the work of St Francis of Assisi (including the one with that "icky feeling" toward Gore supporters)! I've tried to divert some earlier garbage on CD to basic discussions about third party building and common ground on issues; they were ignored or met with the same sort of contempt. Oh no, we Democrats are evil, crooked, and "faux environmentalists"! Not to mention "Kool-Aid drinkers", "trolls", and "corporate ass-kissers". Which is why I no longer feel obliged to "address any rebuttals".
Speaking of ass-kissing - Jennifer suggested that I do hers. Bottom line (no pun intended): All I did was decline the offer. Please take a glimpse at some of the other "opinions" vented here before presuming to lecture me about "behaviour".
I've been on Alternet too in case you didn't know. I don't always post though. If you don't find what I said as useful, fine but stop lying about Nader. I would have liked Gore if he had been honest and consistent. Instead, his own legislative actions went against his own books. I've said it on Alternet a million times to the Obamabots and I'll say it here. REPAIR YOUR DEMOCRAT PARTY !
Yes, I used to shout out the KMA remark loosely in the past but in this case, you pushed me into saying it and you know it.
Aside though, let me make one thing clear to you that most of us here on CD and more people on Alternet and even Fluffpost and DKos share. We're sick and tired of the electorate picking Republicans and any Tom, Dick, and Harry with a D next to their name ! Either this electorate wake up and learn to put principle over party affiliation or this nation will never heal !
Tmchacko,
No need to explain, I understood, but I couldn’t help remarking the disconnect between your compliment to Gore and your languge in response to JB, who—sorry, just shoot me—impresses me as an impassioned, earnest young woman who is righteously indignant about the injustice and creeping fascism ever more apparent in her country, and who is open to criticism when it’s valid. Sorry, but if you can’t see that the Democrats are just the flip side of the corporate coin, argument is futile. I’m new to the CD comments, but I find them fascinating for their overall intelligence, education, knowledge, humor and passionate concern for the planet and its inhabitants, as opposed to the ignorance and/or apathy which is the status quo. (Nothing wrong with a safe outlet for justifiable outrage and frustration either, is there?) Forest for the trees, please. And there is dialogue, though it sometimes descends into snarky and downright nasty personal attack. Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t you throw the first stone? Kudos for your efforts to initiate “discussions about third party building and common ground on issues,” but is it possible that your assumptions and sensitivities preclude discussion? You probably understand the science and technology behind environmental degradation and possible solutions better than I do, so how do you defend cap and trade? I wish Gore had been elected only because I don’t think he would have invaded Iraq after 9/11 and hundreds of thousands of senselessly and criminally murdered Iraqis would now be alive, immense human suffering averted, etc. Then again, Joe Lieberman might be president now and we might be celebrating a nuclear attack on Iran executed with partner Israel in addition to the fallout, literally. Try to understand why people can’t forgive and forget Gore’s participation in Clinton’s movement of the Democratic Party to the right, through, for example, the passage of NAFTA and Glass-Steagall. Whenever I peruse this virtual forum, I imagine it realized, all the participants coming together in a huge hall to organize at the grass roots. Cynic that I am, I guess I can still dream. As one poster said, it would very useful if CD had a thread devoted only to people’s activism in their various communities. Peace.
Desmoulins,
Peace to you, too! At least your arguments are well-thought out (although I can't agree that I have precluded reasoned discussion, or thrown the first stone). I think we could at least have a pleasant disagreement. Better still, you sound like someone from whom I could learn. I am NOT an authority on science and technology. As I said, I could also learn from the other posters before you in this segment.
Jennifer I won't even bother with, at least not directly. You see, she can still justify her style by saying that someone else "drove her to it". (Not that I've lost sleep over it!) For someone who boasts of her toughness and "never back down" activism, she has a remarkably thin skin! But a life lesson for her and so many "impassioned, earnest" people is: You undermine your own cause by such tactics - the negativity, the condescension, the idea that anyone who does not share 100% of your worldview is a "cornfed, ignorant lamebrain" (among other things), and the refusal to concede that there is ANYTHING worthwhile in an opponent's point of view. Sure, Democrats are damned frustrating at times, but thus far, third party candidates have offered nothing for me - and that includes Mr Nader.
I'm old enough to remember George Wallace, Eugene McCarthy, and John Anderson, not to mention Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan. (I have family in Minnesota, where they had to deal with Jesse "The Body" Ventura!) Not a healthy trend for third parties! And frankly, if people like Jennifer are the third party wave, they have an excellent chance of going the way of the "Know Nothings", Strom Thurmond's "Dixiecrats", and Henry Wallace's "Progressives". But, she knows better!
No, I wouldn't shoot you - I can't even handle a gun! Sorry if you felt caught in the crossfire, though. Wipe off the powder burns and enjoy your holidays!
The wonderfully positive ecological "victories" you mention, are negated when they are weighed against the bottom/baseline of pure human compassion and peace. How many deaths are Gore and Clinton (along the She-Devil herself --Madeline Albright--responsible for? (Gee, how did NAFTA effect the general population and the environment?)
And, good God, could you imagine Gore's go-to guy, Joe Lieberman, as VP on 9-11?.
Gore and Clinton are responsible for the deaths of thousands, and now Gore is championed as a "savior" of mankind? Of planet Earth? LOL.
Gore's embracing of global warming is little more than an attempted whitewash of Gore's past and the democratic party (in its never ending quest to position itself as the "good" party).
Why are democrats such a violent party with violent followers?
Thank you !
P.S.: To answer your question, both the Republicans and Democrats are just scared to lose so violent followers are their answer. :(
The link below might be a clue as to why Gore did an about face and became an environmentalist. Someone up thread mentioned that he was endorsed by the League of Conservation Voters. Was this only because GW Bush was such a horrid candidate or was it because Gore was good for the environment? The LCV gave Gore a lifetime rating of 64%, a "D" grade. Kerry received a score in the high 90s. So I always assume, when a Senator has a poor environmental record such as Gore, and then suddenly changes, is there an ulterior motive? Check out this:
http://www.operationmindseed.com/?p=2353
"So there you have it – LaSalle (from Rodale Institute) proposed a way of solving the CO2 issue but was basically told to shove it by Gore’s team because the methods he advocated would eliminate the need for what Gore and his cronies are really pursuing, nightmare regulation, taxation, and control over American’s lives, along with billions of dollars flooding into the coffers of Gore and the rest of the “carbon billionaire” globalists via the carbon trading systems they own."
and this:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54528
Gore's "carbon offsets" paid to firm he owns. Critics say justification for energy-rich lifestyle serves as way for former VP to profit." You can see a picture of one of his many mansions. Environmentalists don't live that way. Ok ok, I'm a purist. Do I expect everyone to be? yes. at least they should try! Writing a self-serving book doesn't count.
Hopefully, we all evolve toward enlightenment. Is it not just possible that the man, as he matured, came to a more enlightened view of the world?
If a person is sincerely working for a good cause, is it wise to denigrate that work because he has not for all of his life held those views and even may have done harm in the past? I read here what seems to me to be mean spirited attacks on someone who appears to be trying to be part of the solution. dh
What mean spirited attacks? We are telling the truth and we take quality seriously. Gore working for a good cause? I don't see him making the case for HR 676 (single payer health care) or HR 1866 (legalize industrial hemp to reduce global warming and replace crude oil) and I'll bet I know why. I don't hate the man personally but his historical record filled with anti-environmental hypocrisy disgusts me. I had found out some of that when I made the choice to vote for Nader over Gore. Bill Kibben's article is correct on his critique of Gore.
Jennifer: I was starting to getting that icky feeling reading all these glowing posts about Gore. Thanks for the cold cup of coffee. It is needed!
McKibben: it's that Gore could have devoted a little space to figuring out how we should build that political will...
This is the real story and McKibben doesn't spend much time on it. It's been very disappointing reading all the posts about various technological solutions. They all miss the point. The problem we face is not technological. In fact the technological solutions, alternative energies etc. (well understood by now), are far less important than conservation. The real problem is our "continuous growth" political economy. The resource wars (Af-Pak,Iraq etc, etc), the concentration of wealth, hunger, lack of health care, and of course, global warming, all have the same source: CAPITALISM. Not a peep from Gore or McKibben on the most important issue of all. Gore and McKibben are reformers. As Michael Moore said: "capitalism is evil and you can't reform evil."
Jennifer has many times written that Gore supports clean coal.
I sent her different articles on different occasions where Gore specifically lashes out against clean coal. Yet she persists.
That coupled with her fat slob comments made me realize that if I wanted to argue with someone with no objectivity or insight, I would just find some right wing person. They don't like Al Gore either because they think the planet is actually cooling and various other reasons.
So I am through with her, but you go!
Jackie
The irony of the denialist position is that the longer we put off making the changes Gore examines in his book, the more likely the denialist predictions that they will be draconian will come true. Global Warming is real. Eventually, everyone will realize it. Unfortunately, by the time everyone is yelling for a solution, only the most drastic solutions will be effective.
Part of the emerging paradigm is input from first peoples. Link to a wonderful narrative by a Salish woman that reminds of the treasure of our humanity.
Printing out for passing around at family gatherings would be a gift:
http://www.culturalsurvival.org/publications/cultural-survival-quarterly/united-states/other-way-knowing
Raising the price of carbon without first readjusting the American tax system to make it radically more progressive will leave working people in the cold. The American Congress is absolutely incapable of making that kind of change so we will have to rely on economic collapse instead. I believe that American manhood is at risk here and it's not looking good. The faux manly beer swilling football fan turns out to be a political whimp with an apelike brain. No doubt the forefathers expected more.
Don't wait for the federal government. They are owned by the fossil-fuel industry. Instead, implement free public transit in your town. It can be done. It is being done. The fossil-fuel industry cannot control every town and city.
http://frepubtra.blogspot.com
"...market forces will drive us quickly toward the answers we need..."
Exactly what is the evidence for this loaded ideological generality which is the central thesis of this essay?
_______64%! A "D" Grade! Al Gore's Life Time Environmental Rating!_______
I would trust Al Gore more if, as a Senator, he had acted more on the behalf of the environment than on corporation. After years in the Senate, the League of Conservation Voters gave Gore a life time rating of 64%. I'm an educator, 64% is a "D" grade. Although I'm not a huge fan of John Kerry, I admire his lifetime rating of around 95%.
Never forget the logic of rich pigs; the more desperate the times, the cheaper the labor and the greater the profit. The rich will have plenty of volunteers to man the castle ramparts to kill those beggars that get too close. Police? Ha! A rich man kills people and the police will call it self defense because he is defending "his" property.
The rich won't change. The only system that keeps those pigs in check and can keep humanity viable is socialism. It's not perfect but at least it would put a damper on greed and provide universal birth control as well.
As for energy, geothermal can get us 80% of the way there. Most energy use is for heating and cooling (NOT transportation). Geo-thermal can solve that without generating CO2 and can also be used to charge batteries for electric machines such as cars and trucks. The other 20% can be provided by wind and solar.
But it won't happen. Here's why. Every rich capitalist lives by the dream of the captive market and a perpetual sream of profit generating revenue. To this end, they devise "business models" exactly ass backwards from sustainable, environmentally friendly, independent solutions. In their troglodyge thinking, the very idea that the average chump won't need to "go back for more" (gasolene, viagra or other drugs, a new car, appliance, computer, face lift, etc. every two years) is heresy to these monsters. Forget providing a service. They want to addict you to their products. The government goes along because it taxes the products. When you can get your energy out of the ground, it's harder to tax than at the gas pump (I'm sure they'll find a way to tax you for being self-sufficient, but it will be more difficult). That explains the government's reticence to subsidize geothermal installations in private homes through tax breaks. The government doesn't give a damn about the environment. They only care about their tax revenue. When things get blatent like poisoned water or air, the government pretends concern. Bullshit. The inability of the government to connect the dots is deliberate. They do not want an independent populace. They want a dependent populace. Dependence is killing the planet. They do not care.
So you see the REAL problem is the massive resistance of capitalism to the destruction of it's consumerist business model. No, it's not population. No, it's not politics. All these are straw men. Yes, it's profits for rich pigs. That is the problem. Socialism is the answer. If you don't like it, tough shit. Even the rich are practicing a form of socialism amongst themselves by banding together in gated communities to get cheaper security and access to high quality services, energy and living conditions. They get it. They just don't want us to get it.
Capitalism thrives on scarcity. Waste and contamination offer unparalleled profit potential. Climate change constitutes a golden opportunity in which to further privatize the world’s remaining public resources. The ruling elite plan to ride the destruction of the natural environment to unimaginable wealth. This can be illustrated by the rapid privatization of fresh water, now celebrated as a mega-market for capital accumulation. The drying up of fresh water sources such as glaciers creates compelling new investment opportunities. Gérard Mestrallet, CEO of the global water giant Suez, has openly pronounced: "Water is an efficient product. It is a product which normally would be free, and our job is to sell it. But it is a product which is absolutely necessary for life." He further remarked: "Where else [other than in the monopolization of increasingly scarce water resources for private gain] can you find a business that’s totally international, where the prices and volumes, unlike steel, rarely go down?"
But it is not water alone that provides such opportunities. Speculators are getting richer quicker through the monopolization of land and the control of primary commodity resources. Carbon-trading as promoted by the Obama administration offers yet another greased chute for would-be billionaires. While no carbon emissions have yet been reduced through any of these schemes, it has enabled capital expansion by eroding the vital conditions of life. At all times, ruling-class circles have successfully countered the threat of sustainability, keeping the treadmill of production safe and holding the ecological-cultural revolution at bay. Real wealth comes from nature and the creative labor power of fulfilled human beings meeting genuine human needs. When will we consent to this awakening?