Skip to main content

View Diary: Gore on fire: Says humans treating atmosphere 'as if it is an open sewer' (229 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Maybe ... (9+ / 0-)
    Gore could very well be the best
    But not if he's going to continue Obama's environmental and energy policies. From what I know, Gore is a committed neoliberal, just like Obama and The Clintons. Am I mistaken about that?
    •  Yes. (15+ / 0-)

      Unless you believe that the past twelve years or so he was educating the world about catastrophic climate change for the same reasons that Ted Cruz went pheasant hunting in Iowa.

      •  i Believe Al Gore Has Become Fabulously Wealthy (4+ / 0-)

        since leaving politics. That is neoliberalism's signature. Moreover, if Gore disagrees with Obama's business-oriented approach to addressing AGW he has been pretty silent about it.

        Sometimes not good enough really means not good enough. The physical world doesn't care about our nonsensical politics. More carbon into the atmosphere last year than ever before in history. That's all the physical world cares about. Failure is failure.

        •  who is BETTER on the issue of climate change? (17+ / 0-)

          I'm not necessarily an Al Gore fan, and I don't think he has any intention of running for president, but among all the candidates who have any plausible chance of gaining a major party nomination, is there anyone who's even close to Al Gore in terms of his interest in climate change?

          Note, I'm not even talking about his POLICY ideas related to climate change. I'm just talking about his INTEREST in it. No other candidate has even the slightest, tiniest shred of real interest in addressing climate change; no other candidate has any intent to actually do anything about it.

          With Gore, at least we'd have someone who has a longstanding genuine interest in the perils of climate change, so he might at least try to do something. With every other candidate I can think of, we'd get nothing but lip service, if we're lucky, because it will be somewhere around #97 on their list of priorities and they won't even attempt to do something.


          •  There is no way out of climate change (2+ / 0-)

            Its a disaster whose time has come. My way of assessing the global warming aspect of climate change is to note when the ground freezes in mid coastal Maine. In the 1990's that was about the time school started in September. A couple of decades later its almost November  no frost let alone frozen ground and I may have to go mow my lawn again.

            Sea level rise that will require 100 East and Gulf coast cities with populations over 100,000 and their suburbs which can't be saved by levees or seawalls or barrier islands to have to move inland to somewhere in the  Appalachians.

            Opportunistic diseases, plague, pestilence, water shortages, saline soils, soil liquification, crop failures, resource wars, not to mention peak oil, exploding populations, resource wars, will all be here in the next few decades.

            The oceans and forests are already dying, fire, flood, tornado, hurricane, mudslide all add to the environmental impact and cost.

            Given all of that its not difficult to state the things that need to be done, finding a work around for the Republican obstruction and the climate change denial is another story.

            Live Free or Die --- Investigate, Incarcerate

            by rktect on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 10:53:08 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You Know Better than the Scientists (2+ / 0-)

              Yes, even though the consensus of climate scientists is that we still have years to change course from catastrophic climate change, you know better because you stare at the ground in mid-coastal Maine.

              "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

              by DocGonzo on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 11:02:27 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You misunderstand the consensus of scientists (5+ / 0-)

                The consensus (what's in the IPCC report) is that IF greenhouse gas reductions are drastic and soon, then we may limit global warming to 2 degrees C.  

                When the ground freezes in Maine is one of billions of data points that indicate the warming of the climate.  I could point out a dozen more just from my little corner of Georgia.  But that's not the point; it's not a single observation or a statistical sampling of them that is important, it is the ensemble average of all of them.  

                We don't have years to correct the course of climate change, the next couple of decades are pretty well set.  The unknowns for the next couple of decades are:
                -- when will the Arctic Ocean be ice free in summer?
                -- when will China clean the sulfur out of their smokestack emissions?
                -- when will the next strong El Nino come?

                If the answer to any of these questions is sooner, rather than later, then expect another round of broken weather records indicative of climate change.  What the political debate now is about is whether atmospheric CO2 will peak in 2040, 2080, or some time in the next century.  

                •  I Understand (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  rbird, Kombema, radical simplicity

                  I understand the IPCC consensus. It doesn't say it's inevitable that

                  Sea level rise that will require 100 East and Gulf coast cities with populations over 100,000 and their suburbs which can't be saved by levees or seawalls or barrier islands to have to move inland to somewhere in the  Appalachians.

                  We have years, few though they might be, to avoid that degree of change. Perhaps most important we have enough time before we lose the privilege of choices to avert some change which would be faster and worse.

                  So we cannot afford to just "lay back and enjoy it" or whatever purely fatalistic approach is advised in the post to which I replied. And we certainly can't disagree with the IPCC based on looking at our own backyard. That is nonsense, whether to decide we're past the point we can do anything about it as in that post, or whether to insist that the climate isn't changing as deniers have been obstructing us with for invaluable years and decades.

                  "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

                  by DocGonzo on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 02:20:43 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  What sometimes gets neglected when we have years (0+ / 0-)

                    is how long it takes to move all our coastal infrastructure. It takes about 25 years to produce a master plan of what gets moved where when, and then another 25 years to actually do the work. That's presuming somebody manages to identify the funding and Republicans get voted out of office before they can deny everything.

                    As I write this I'm listening to Rachel Madow talking about New York Cities SLOSH map. For Hurricane Sandy they were able to calculate that they needed to build a wall eight and a half feet tall to keep the subways from flooding and the flooding came within three inches of topping it out.

                    Now shes talking about Roanoke Virginia and how we need to be retreating from the shorelines.  The phenomena that science studies and reports on gets acted on when there is a storm and a city floods.

                    She says Republicans object to climate change and global warming as left wing terms, they prefer recurant flooding.

                    She says North Carolina scientific studies project a sea level rise of one meter, but politicians decided that was too much to contemplate so they decided instead to consider a rise of one foot.

                    Now she is talking about how the flooding in Nebraska threatened its Nuke plants, and how that state has decided to study historic records not of climate change but rather of cyclical climate change and scientists don't want to lend credibility to that by participating in it.

                    Live Free or Die --- Investigate, Incarcerate

                    by rktect on Wed Oct 30, 2013 at 01:15:37 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Armageddon (0+ / 0-)

                      When NYC is having storms that big regularly enough to justify the construction cost, the rest of the world will have hundreds of millions of desperate refugees, pushing into other desperate countries barely able now to feed, protect and control their current populations - mostly by force. Many of these countries have WMD and/or global terrorist franchises, and are embedded in a global infrastructure (manufacturing, energy, shipping, etc) barely able to protect itself in the customary climate.

                      While NYC is hiding behind 10 foot walls, lots of places in the world are going to go to war for survival.

                      It's not going to be "recurrent flooding". It's going to be armageddon.

                      That's why we must use the time we have to reduce and perhaps reverse the climate change, which would be universal. While other people are doing whatever they can to somewhat protect places now more vulnerable, especially the ones more strategically located closer to armageddon.

                      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

                      by DocGonzo on Wed Oct 30, 2013 at 12:43:10 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  You have a good grasp on the big picture (0+ / 0-)

                  and there are some scientists like Hansen who don't think the costs of mediation should be the main drivers when it comes to whatever it takes to survive, but most of the seven billion people on this planet are in what I call supertanker mode, very hard to turn before we go aground and the die offs from consequences we are ill prepared to control begin to include us. I'm not holding my breath till China decides to clean up their smokestacks.

                  We actually created this situation on purpose and it says a lot about where we will end up. International energy corporations and the British Navy wanted to keep Russia, Germany, France, Japan, China and India from having access to the light sweet crude  of the Ottoman Empire,  that fueled battleships and modern Western Civilizations rapid expansion so we fought a couple of World Wide Resource Wars to keep them running on coal rather than crude.

                  Live Free or Die --- Investigate, Incarcerate

                  by rktect on Wed Oct 30, 2013 at 02:12:37 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Sometimes comparing something enormous to... (8+ / 0-)

                what you can personally touch and feel and relate to helps to see it more clearly.  

                I would like to know what climate scientist you have read that seems so lackadaisical about having "Years to change course from catastrophic climate change".

                What I have read indicates that based on the amount of carbon we have already harvested from the earth and the amount that we intend to continue harvesting with no reasonable strategy to significantly slow down, it is already too late.  

                There is no plan to immediately significantly stop the harvesting of currently sequestered carbon from the earth.  There is no plan to adaquately stop the processing of that currently sequestered carbon from a relatively harmless (to the environment) carbon solid, liquid or gas contained deep within the earth for millions and millions of years into Co2 and other harmful chemicals and pumping out in the air, altering the chemical composition of the atmosphere for milliniums.  

                Anything we can do at this point is simply aimed at mitigating these issues not preventing catastrophic consequences.  Miami is going to be under sealevel and there is nothing anyone can do to prevent that at this point.  There are islands with inhabitants that are going to disappear.  There are going to be more and more category 5 (and eventually 6) storms that they will kill thousands of people and destroy countless lives.  There will be more droughts and heat waves like in Australia where they had to make a new color scale for temperatures because the old one didn't go up high enough.  These are the results catastrophic climate change and it is only going to get worse.  Show me evidence that I am wrong about any of this.

                Rktect pointed out how in just a couple decades, they can see the difference in his/her state; not with scientific analysis or high tech equipment taking daily readings but by simply looking at their soil.  I have seen it as well remembering a spring thaw back where I grew up in the 70s where there was snow on the ground all winter long and then the last winter I lived there in the '98, snow didn't stick one time during that entire winter.  

                So, when you say (in a somewhat dickish manner) that:

                you know better because you stare at the ground in mid-coastal Maine.
                My answer would be abso-fucking-lutely!  I do not agree with your statement that it is a consensus among climate scientists that we do not need to be in any big hurry but even if you are right, I'm going to make up my own mind.  I'd rather believe what I can see with my own two eyes and what I can feel with my hands.  It is the consensus of every Jewish rabbi that the God of Moses is the one and only true God.  I'll evaluate the evidence I see for myself and make a determination based on that thank you very much.  

                I don't know where you are from or how old you are but maybe you should try to remember what winter was like when you were a kid and then think about what it like right now.  I remember when it used to snow on Halloween quite frequently and we always seemed to have at least one real snowfall before Thanksgiving.  Snow was fairly common to see in college football games.  I don't see that anymore.

                "Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not YET sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favour..."

                by Buckeye Nut Schell on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 12:47:24 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Not What I Said (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  goodpractice, radical simplicity

                  I didn't say climate scientists said we don't need to be in any big hurry. I said they didn't say it was too late to avert disaster, in response to a post saying it's too late.

                  When I implied that climate scientists' consensus is worth considering, and some guy looking at their backyard isn't when it contradicts that consensus, I was being dickish but I wasn't being a dick. The assertion I rejected was inane, dangerous, and years ago already was the assertions of actual dicks who should shut up already.

                  There are many plans to slow and even reverse over time the climate change we can already roughly predict. In NYC alone, where I'm from and whose Hallowe'ens I can remember since the 1970s, we have implemented PLANYC2030, which cuts Greenhouse emissions by 30%. NYC is a big emitter (though already fairly efficient), and other cities are following suit through implementation.

                  There is of course already climate change, and more change baked into even the most optimistic improvements over the next decades. But in fact an uninhabitable Miami is not inescapable.

                  Unless we all decide it's inescapable and do nothing. No more certain path to defeat than to stop fighting.

                  "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

                  by DocGonzo on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 02:07:39 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  The problem with the IPCC consensus (0+ / 0-)

                    is that to get a couple of thousand scientists to agree that climate change is anthropogenic, (caused predominately by humans), you have to take consensus on the lowest common denominator on which everyone can agree.

                    I consider science informative but not restrictive. You can sometimes perform simple experiments on your own which are enlightening including keeping diaries for multiple generations of one family living on one property.

                    Starting in 1972 through 2004 My mom recorded faithfully every day month after month year after year the dates of repeating weather phenomena.

                    I can compare my own observations to hers; whether there was Indian Summer and how long it lasted, what the harvest was like, when the first frost comes, when snow falls, when the ground freezes, when the snow melts in its January thaw, when mud time comes, whether the spring is particularly rainy, the arrival of ticks and their increase, the number of bees.

                    Of the half dozen IPCC scenarios from the last report we have exceeded six; including the worst case analysis and modeling for no mediation because all observations have exhibited surprising acceleration, a rate of increase which increases at an increasing rate, or in layman's terms is indicative of exponential growth.

                    Now if you can imagine Miami sinking beneath the waves over the next couple of decades, have a look at the elevations of the east coast up through Georgia and the Carolina's, Chesapeake Bay, Maryland, Jersey, and Cape Cod.

                    Over the next half century we can expect the BosWash corridor population to double at least twice. If it doubles in place including its slurbs, all of that infrastructure may sink beneath the waves in a single day and night as was the case with Hurricane Sandy.

                    Live Free or Die --- Investigate, Incarcerate

                    by rktect on Wed Oct 30, 2013 at 01:02:16 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  I have a futurists slightly phenomenological bent (0+ / 0-)

                so that my scientific observation is of the change in scientific predictions of annual sea level rise since 1990.

                1990 1mm
                1995 1mm
                2000 2 mm
                2005 3 mm
                2010 5 mm (along the East Coast)
                [2015] 8 mm projected (Florida)

                If that was a linear rise its no big deal, In 1990 a rise of 110 mm by 2100 didn't scare the scientists of the IPCC.

                Even in 2000 a rise of 200 mm or 8" didn't scare a Republican administration.

                By 2010 low lying states like Florida and North Carolina were beginning to worry enough about their barrier islands and tourism that they did their own studies. 450 mm by 2100 is a foot and a half which is a little scary but in the range of solvable with sea walls.

                Unfortunately its an exponential rise closely following the Fibonacci series. Run the numbers to 2050 which is only 37 years away and the whole of the east and gulf coast has a problem that sea walls and levees can't handle for cities or their slurbs. River valleys will flood as far inland as the foothills of the Appalachains

                Now you can throw into that very simple model in which the rate of increase increases at an increasing rate a few tipping points that skew the data off the charts; methane hydrate releases, dying oceans and forests that when healthy act as carbon sinks, loss of polar sea ice affecting the albedo,  the die offs of bacteria in the North sea that are the largest source of organic oxygen production

                Atmospheric Oxygen is one of those things that we might miss if it dropped to 40% of today's levels. We are presently at about 20% so if we get below 8% then its unlikely that any oxygen breathers survive.

                A die off of the largest organic producer would be hard to mediate, phenomena which are so blatant that we can observe them without doing a scientific study get scary.

                Live Free or Die --- Investigate, Incarcerate

                by rktect on Wed Oct 30, 2013 at 01:45:35 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  US Republican Party is hardly the only obstacle (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              If the US were to fix its act starting tomorrow, it still wouldn't be nearly enough. This requires international cooperation, which isn't going to come easily. . China recently has invested a tremendous amount of resources into building lots of coal plants, and is also trying to maintain its lead in solar manufacturing. Russia -- and especially the Russian oligarchy -- is getting fabulously wealthy of gas deposits. Lots of oil-exporting countries will also fight imposed change.

              Therefore, the only real solution will be to switch the economics -- to make countries switch to carbon-neutral sources because they're cheaper...because their people will lead better lives.

              Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you:

              by FischFry on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 08:49:21 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  and the inconvenient truth (0+ / 0-)

              is that nothing will be done, because the correct target is the Oligarch, not cows and their farts, and there's not a politician alive who will dare to speak it.

              don't always believe what you think

              by claude on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 02:35:29 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  But there is a way out of catastrophic climate (0+ / 0-)

              change if we get our asses in gear. This kind of excuse for inaction from people who accept the science is just as pernicious as denial.

              "And now we know that government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob." -- FDR

              by Mogolori on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 05:19:06 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse RI speaks on it every week (2+ / 0-)

            In the Senate.  He isn't a candidate, but should be.  Sen. Merkley (OR) is also good, and could be a candidate down the road.  

            Don't bet your future on 97% of climate scientists being wrong. Take action on climate now!

            by Mimikatz on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 01:07:41 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  All Fabulously Wealthy are Neoliberals? (6+ / 0-)

          Gore's private career has insisteed on government forcing businesses to use energy more expensively (at least at first) to cut emissions for longterm survival, with any profit only incidental to the survival. Everyone who leaves politics from as high and as young as he was has gotten "fabulously wealthy" with few exceptions, including Jimmy Carter. This is a man who directly helped invent the Internet that remade the world economy and industries while he was in the White House, and was forced from politics while extremely popular due to insights in tech and environment.

          You're going to have to give more evidence and logic for calling Gore "neoliberal" than just his bank account. Starting with his actions.

          "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

          by DocGonzo on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 10:23:09 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The Comment I Replied To Suggested (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            that Gore has been acting altruistically since leaving politics. The fact that he has made many millions suggests otherwise. This notion that government must "partner" with business is the core of neoliberal thought. What it really is, however, is a justification for corruption and greed. That is the Al Gore I remember from the 90s, same as Bill Clinton. In Gore's defense, nearly everyone still thought neoliberalism was hip in the 90s. Now we know better. If Gore has changed and now recognizes that Corporatism only benefits the SuperRich (the "savvy businessmen"), his post-poltics actions don't show it. Neither does his silence regarding Obama's abysmal environmental performance.

            •  No It Didn't (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              radical simplicity

              It said that Gore's reasons aren't the same as Cruz's:

              Unless you believe that the past twelve years or so he was educating the world about catastrophic climate change for the same reasons that Ted Cruz went pheasant hunting in Iowa.

              That doesn't suggest altruism, though it does suggest something other than exclusively personal ambition. At any rate it certainly doesn't exclude making a lot of money for doing the right thing.

              The core of neoliberal thought is that government must always yield to business, not "partner" with it unless the partnership is predatory by business.

              Gore has changed, in that his electoral victory was thwarted by corporate interests who also are the biggest polluters. He has accepted that business methods for averting climate change are more effective than merely having government interfere with business.

              Look, you're wrong about what neoliberalism is, wrong about what the comment you replied to said, wrong about how Gore operates. It's obvious that you've got an agenda that's casting your experience of these things, probably consistent with a username like "socialismorbarbarism".

              "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

              by DocGonzo on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 11:07:06 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, the problem with Al Gore is that he (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          RF, socialismorbarbarism

          is a horribly tainted messenger.

          Insofar as whenever he was in power, or running for POTUS in 2000, he was essentially a Clinton/Obama clone on the issues.

          So it's nice that now that he's freed from any responsibility that he's veered left.   But there is no indication that that's anything but a ploy for publicity and/or relevance from the very progressives that he once so aggressively spurned.

          •  Al Gore is a problem solver. He is not into all (4+ / 0-)

            this for glory.  He is the reason that the internet was funded by congress.  He has been forward looking ever since a certain professor introduced him to the global warming issue many years ago.

            Clinton has him to thank for the inernet boom of the 90s that made him an extremely popular president.

            I hate to see all this Gore bashing.  it is mostly because he is wealthy?

            •  Basically throwing the 2000 election did it for me (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              that put the country in a hole we may never get out of.

            •  Gore is sui generis (5+ / 0-)

              He doesn't fit easily into any box. That's why people bash him.

              Also because he's too good at what he does. It's not that he acts superior, or pretends to be superior--he IS superior, and he doesn't dumb it down to make people feel better. And that's the one unforgivable sin. It absolutely infuriates people (both on the left and the right), because they want to be pandered to and have their preconceived notions reinforced, not challenged.

              Gore has done good work inside a very broken system. This is  because he has a quality very rare among politicians: profound foresight. He sees the key issues long before others are even aware of them, and he sees them whole and entire, while others are still groping around trying to get their bearings. Then once he sees the issues, he attacks them with all his might, gathers all the information he can on them, and tries to find solutions to these fundamentally new problems where no one has any idea what to do.

              Gore's work on the Internet is enough by itself to put him in the highest rank of American statesmen/women.

              That that same man also foresaw the threat of climate change and spent decades trying to figure out how to systematically reconfigure our entire economic and political system to meet that challenge, puts him in the highest rank of world statesmen/women.

              While all the liberal Boomer economists are imagining that all we need to do is return to the postwar economic consensus (bring back manufacturing, buy American), Gore is looking far ahead to much more fundamental issues, investigating the impact of technology and mechanization on labor and capital and trying to figure out what work and manufacturing will become in a world where 3D printers can spit out whatever goods people need. This is a revolutionary change that will be upon us before we know it and alter every aspect of our lives, and very few people, besides a few tech experts, are even thinking about it. Except for Gore.

              Isiah Berlin said of FDR that he "was one of the few statesmen in the twentieth or any other century who seemed to have no fear at all of the future." Gore also has that quality.

              Where others look back with nostalgia for what was, Gore looks forward, always forward, and always without fear, always believing that the American people--and the people of the world--can meet the challenge.

              That is what a leader is.

              "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

              by limpidglass on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 01:47:37 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Beautifully said. (5+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                rainmanjr, Dave925, ORDem, melo, flevitan

                I wish the time for recommending had not expired.  I've heard people blow Gore off as a "policy wonk."  To me, there is no higher compliment.  He has vision, and he cares, and he works at it.  I love this guy.  If he runs, I'll work full time to help, any way I can.

                Why on earth does he need Hillary Clinton's permission to do anything???

                "If there are no dogs in heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went." - Will Rogers

                by Kentucky DeanDemocrat on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 08:19:52 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I fear a Gore run. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  While I love the man and his vision, and know that he won the popular vote in 2000, it was a too narrow win and he gave up before a single recount had actually taken place.  I think he serves us better from outside govt as a man who puts pressure on the President to act.  Therefore, I favor that he not run.

                  "When you think about the money spent/on defense by the government/& the weapons of destruction we've built/we're so sure that we need/then you think of the millions that money could feed/How long?" J Browne

                  by rainmanjr on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 10:18:01 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  That's not even true (4+ / 0-)

                    The Supreme Court stopped the recount that was in progress.

                    He didn't "give up".  He went to the Supreme Court to fight his case and lost.

                    The Supreme Court sold out, betrayed us, the craven assholes.

                    But what do you do after the Supreme Court says no?

                    I suppose he could have marched in the street, staged a coup, and I would have loved him to do it, but it wasn't going to happen no matter who was in that position.

                  •  He "gave up"? (0+ / 0-)

                    What on earth?  Are you not aware of this very recent history (in which case you should study up on it) or are you trying to rewrite history (in which case I'll know simply to ignore your comments)?  

                    "If there are no dogs in heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went." - Will Rogers

                    by Kentucky DeanDemocrat on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 09:25:47 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  No recount had gotten complete before SC (0+ / 0-)

                      Gore wanted another 4 counties to be recounted, by hand, so Bush sued to get a verifiable method of judging those ballots.  That's when it went to the SC so no actual recounts had been completed before the decision.  After the decision it would have been pointless, yes, so Gore conceded.  If Gore hadn't requested the additional 4 counties then a recount would have been finished but, most likely, so would Gore as he was behind in those counties.  He asked for the additional 4 because it's likely he wasn't behind in the entire state.

                      "When you think about the money spent/on defense by the government/& the weapons of destruction we've built/we're so sure that we need/then you think of the millions that money could feed/How long?" J Browne

                      by rainmanjr on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 10:43:38 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

          •  What? (5+ / 0-)

            Do you know what he's been doing for the past 14 years?

            You think he's been sitting on his ass polishing his image?

            He's not running for office, he's promoting bold action on climate change.

            A man doesn't spend 14 years on ONE issue, an issue he has been passionate about for decades, to win anyone's vote.

            It's what he wants to do.

            No matter what you feel about Al Gore, your comment has no basis in fact or reality.

        •  I Believe Al Gore Has Become Fabulously Wealthy (0+ / 0-)

          Thanks to Al-Jazeera.

          •  Fabulsly wealthy due to BigOil (Qatari oil money) (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Prior to sale of Current, VP Gore had criticized US media corporations for taking money from BigOil.

            Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project.

            by PatriciaVa on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 12:57:45 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  he has not made one dime from climate change (4+ / 0-)

          Every penny he has made from his climate change-related activities (book/movie sales, his work in sustainable investment) has been donated to the nonprofit organization he founded to fight climate change. He's not battling climate change to make money. End of story.

          And please don't continue bleating "But he's profiteering!" as if I had not said anything.

          Facts and nuance do matter, and considerably more than blanket claims that someone doesn't comport with your particular ideology.

          "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

          by limpidglass on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 12:55:25 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  My Ideology Isn't the Issue: Gore's Is (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            The diarist hopes for an Al Gore candidacy. I think Gore is a neoliberal and I do not believe that philosophy is compatible with meaningfully addressing AGW. A commenter above defended Gore by saying that, since leaving politics, he has become even more Corporatist in his views. That is no endorsement to me. If you think Al Gore is not a neoliberal, that's fine but I would like some evidence. If you agree Gore is a neoliberal and you think that philosophy will adequately address AGW, that's fine too but, again, I see no evidence to support that view. In fact, the neoliberalism Obama adheres to last year resulted in the greatest amount of carbon ever going into the atmosphere. That is failure by any objective measure.

            I'm glad you posted the Politico article. I would be thrilled if it turns out that Gore has now eschews the Corporatist approach to AGW that Obama embraces. The evidence, so far, is contrary. If the evidence is otherwise, I will happily change my opinion.

            As for Gore personally, I like him. I always have. And I absolutely agree that AGW should be the predominant issue of our time. And, yes, raising a conversation is a start. But we are long past the time for a beginning. And if the end result is just more "corporate partnerships" and incremental changes, that simply will not work. Neoliberalism's florid failures under Obama and Clinton have proved that. And that is the bottom line. It's not a matter of philosophy; it's a question of reality. The planet doesn't give a shit about our philosophies. We need a solution and we need it now. Tick tick tick.

        •  Wealth is a disqualifier? (4+ / 0-)

          Gore may not be what you are looking for but he has correct w.r.t. AGW/Climate change and energy policy since well before most accepted that AGW was happening.

          What were you writing about climate change in 1992?

          Here's Al's blog:

          Here's what hard core climate scientists have to say about Inconvenient Truth

          "For the most part, I think Gore gets the science right, just as he did in Earth in the Balance."

        •  Gore has done more than any human to raise (0+ / 0-)

          awareness of human caused climate change.  It sounds like many of you don't know where he has been and what he has been doing since 2000.  I saw him in August for several days.  His organization just did "24 Hours of Reality" which set world records for internet hits every year for the last several years.

          His Climate Reality Project trains leaders all over the world, thousands of them several times per year to spread the truth about anthropogenic global warming.  He works with Obama's Organizing for Action and any organization willing to fight for clean energy.

          I would vote for him in a heartbeat.  I think that he'd have a lot less issues running than Hillary.  Although, he's supposedly said that he won't run if she does.  According to a top news agency rep., he's stated that he will consider a run if Hillary elects not to do so.

        •  "Fabulously wealthy," and yet Al Gore... (0+ / 0-)

 the second most-hated unelected individual by the wrong-wing (after Hillary, who is nowhere near as "fabulously wealthy"). That should tell US something, like someone who knows how to "make" money having the cunning to remove much of it from the .1%! Aside from the .1%, who would shed a tear and not be diagnosed with Tea-Bagger Madness?

    •  Seriously? (14+ / 0-)

      Just based on his statement here and his statements on XL and other issues, he is NOT in the LEAST likely to continue Obama's policies.

      No fucking chance in fucking hell.

      Al Gore Blasts Obama On Climate Change For Failing To Take 'Bold Action'
      Al Gore: Obama needs to get ‘serious’ on climate

      Read more:

      Gore Criticizes Obama for Record on Climate

      Former Vice President Al Gore sharply criticized President Obama as lacking leadership on climate change in a magazine essay published online Wednesday, saying his policies had been little more effective than those of President George W. Bush.

      . . .

      Mr. Gore said that in the face of well-financed attacks from fossil fuel industries and denial and delay from Republicans in Congress, Mr. Obama had failed to act decisively to alter the nation’s policies on climate change and energy.

      Keystone Pipeline Is an “Atrocity”
      Former Vice President Al Gore challenged Americans today to make a complete shift to Earth-friendly energy sources in the next decade, saying the nation's "dangerous overreliance on carbon-based fuel" is at the core of its economic, environmental and national security problems.

      "I challenge our nation to commit to producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean, carbon-free sources within 10 years," Gore said, speaking from Constitution Hall in Washington, D.C., where he called for a full switch to solar, wind and other renewable energy sources.

      This was in 2008.

      In short YES you are mistaken.

      •  Thanks For Posting (0+ / 0-)

        I hope you're right.

      •  Al Gore has been trashed exactly because of this. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Fiona West, aseth, julesrules39

        It would be funny if it weren't sad. Gore has been subjected to an avalanche of lies and disdain that (even) some on the left (for reasons i can't fathom) seem to buy into.

        •  Since You Are Puzzled I'll Add This (0+ / 0-)

          It isn't personal. I like Al Gore. And I recognize that he was in the vanguard of naming AGW as a dire threat. I loved his movie.

          The issue is how to address AGW. I believe that the evidence demonstrates unequivocally that neoliberalism/corporatism cannot provide the requisite solutions. The People acting through our Government must bring Big Business to heel and enact the necessary policies. The time for begging and partnering is gone. Obama has done exactly the opposite. While the Politico piece shows some criticism, it is unclear just what Gore objects to in Obama's polices. Where does Gore stand on fracking, for instance? Would Gore have EPA enact real carbon regulations, as Obama refuses? Does Gore object to the massive deepwater drilling Obama has approved? It is easy to criticize Obama vaguely for not taking AGW serious enough but it is simply unclear what Gore wants Obama to do differently or what PResident Gore would do instead.

          The question raised is whether Al Gore holds Corporatist views like Obama and the Clintons that are -- I believe -- incompatible with the drastic changes AGW demands. Gore's history says yes. And one of Gore's defenders above said Gore is even more Corporatist now than he was while in politics. That is very alarming. I remain open to new evidence. But I'm not buying another pig in a poke.

          •  really? (6+ / 0-)

            You claim to be open to new evidence but you're also ignoring that someone already posted a comment with several links With Gore making very specific criticisms including what should be done differently. If you care enough to Google you'll find much more of the same. According to your own  comment you should be listening to Gore now because he has frequently criticized Obama just as you asked.

            Gore is also honest enough to admit what Obama has done right on climate. You might consider his example.

            •  I read the Politico article (0+ / 0-)

              And I addressed it.

              Incidentally, since the point is to demonstrate that Gore has been criticizing Obama, this is telling:

              Gore is also honest enough to admit what Obama has done right on climate.
              This is Obama's record: More atmospheric carbon last year than any year in human history. More deepwater drilling than Bush, despite the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history in the Gulf. Opening the Arctic to drilling. An explosion of fracking thoughout the country. Shutting down studies showing how dangerous fracking is. A new DOE director nicknamed Dr. Frackenstein. Firing the Texas EPA Administrator who said something mean about Big Oil. Prohibiting EPA from enacting real carbon regulations as the Supreme Court specifically empowered EPA to do. Turning the United States into the New Saudi Arabia just as AGW manifests its calamities.

              It's a real hit parade.

              •  addressed it? (3+ / 0-)

                Making a dismissive comment is not addressing  it. You don't have to "hope" the other person is right. Gore has criticized Obama and it was false to suggest otherwise.

                Your propagandist method of repeating the usual laundry list of complaints without naming a single action Obama has taken to slow climate change is fundamentally dishonest. Since epa is now moving forward with carbon regulation with Obamas support you should remove that item from your talking points. It's a lie at this point.
                Your comment about carbon levels is cute but I'm already aware that US emissions are at their lowest level in 17 years.

            •  Willinois is right, as usual. One can't enter the (0+ / 0-)

              White House and wave a magic wand to end all fossil fuel use today any more than they could have five years ago.  Obama gets fought tooth and nail for executive actions that he can take.  You are all aware that some consider the Republicans on the Energy & Commerce Committee to be pretty much owned by oil, gas or coal?

              The only way to transition to clean energy will be cost parity which Gore talks about and is fighting for every day.  Energy companies are businesses.  They don't care about your ideology or politics, only profit.

              For the record, Obama has tried and actually reduced US GHG emissions (for the first time in 100 years) considerably while having a congress that fights his every move.  If you are going to be critical, at least, be fair.

          •  I would suggest you check out his (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VL Baker, aseth

            views rather than harkening back to stuff he said 15 years ago while running for office led by folks who didn't want him to talk about the environment.

            I started to do a bunch of research for you, but frankly I think if you're interested in climate change efforts and you aren't sure about Al Gore or the organizations he's involved with you can google, check out his websites, etc.

            I don't know why anyone thinks he's "more corporatist than before" but frankly I don't even know what that means in this context.

            He's not running for anything and has never signaled he's running for anything that I am aware of, although who knows.  

            But what he's said about regulations makes it pretty clear that he wouldn't hold back on regulating corporate industry.  He proposed a green grid in 10 years - back in 2008 - that can't be accomplished without pretty much backing startups and pushing polluting corporations out.

            Not exactly an "all of the above, expand oil drilling" policy.

            That can't be accomplished without an all-out land-on-the-moon type program, which he has been talking about for a long time.  

            If anyone asked me who would be the best environmental president, hands down Al Gore.  

          •  I can't imagine why anyone would "defend" Gore by (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            aseth, VL Baker

            claiming he's more corporate now than when he was  VP. I can't think of anything he's done recently that would support that.

            On the other hand, it's impossible to answer your questions about whether Gore is a neoliberal/corporatist, because those terms are used so broadly and vaguely that I have no flipping idea where you in particular draw the lines.

            Gore is not a socialist.  Is that your criteria?  If so, we're doomed, because it'll be more than 10 years before open socialists are winning the presidency in this country, and we can't wait.  We HAVE to make significant progress -- both in fighting global warming and in challenging the power of massive corporations -- in this crucial decade.

            On the other hand, as noted in VL's diary, Gore recently said this:

            “Now we have, on the books of the large, public multinational energy companies, $7 trillion of subprime carbon assets,” he said. “Their valuation is based on an assumption that is even more ridiculous and absurd than the assumption that these people that couldn’t make a downpayment or monthly payments were good risks for home mortgages. The assumption is that those $7 trillion can be sold and burned.”

            “They will not be sold and burned. They cannot be sold and burned.”

            So he's saying that we must prevent corporations from getting any profit from $7 trillion in  lucrative property.  He's saying that their property rights are toast, their property rights are worth bupkus, because the sale and burning of subprime carbon assets is intolerably destructive to the general welfare of all humanity and all other life on Earth.

            So it has to be prevented.  And he's one of the people who intend to do the preventing.

            This is not a neoliberal perspective.

            This is a perspective that assumes that We the People must bring Big Business to heel and enact the necessary policies to keep them from damaging the biosphere irreparably.

            This is not where Al Gore started. It's where he's come to via taking GCC seriously.  I'm sure he has some different views than you do, and certainly different language.  He probably talks about government partnering with business in developing sustainable energy and his beloved "smart grid," sustainable agriculture, etc.  You seem to take the term "partnering" as clear proof of fawning subservience to the interests of the Uber-Rich.

            So you'd probably find listening to Gore's views to be a bit of a rocky road.  But do keep this in mind:  He's the first and only person ever elected to high office in the US, that I know of, who chooses to stand up in public and tell the oil industry that they are going to swallow a $7 trillion loss, and if they don't like it, that's just too freaking bad.

            It's a start.

            --------------------- “These are troubling times. Corporation are treated like people. People are treated like things. …And if we ever needed to vote, we sure do need to vote now.” -- Rev. Dr. William J. Barber

            by Fiona West on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 04:41:11 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Amen, delphine. Anyone who thinks Gore doesn't (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        put transitioning to clean energy across the planet, does not know WTF they are talking about ...

      •  Thanks for that. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VL Baker

        Though I don't blame Obama for the lack of real progress in switching to renewable energy (lots of good progress has been made but it's not enough).  I mostly blame the deniers and mouthpieces in Congress that have blocked funding for real progress to take place.  Obama's done just about everything he could with Executive Orders.  The public allowed the deniers to make these blocks, as well, as even the younger generations are ambivalent to climate disaster.  Jobs has been the demand but Congress has been all about blocking those along with healthcare.  I think Obama's Presidency has been historic, achieving many historic things, but stymied and unfinished.
        Al would be much more forceful and strident on renewables but he would still need funds from the House.  I don't believe he would have been anymore successful in getting those bills passed/funded than Obama.  Unless we change the House, in 2014, I don't see that as changing either.  If we do change it then I think Obama will impress a lot of scientists in his last 2 years.

        "When you think about the money spent/on defense by the government/& the weapons of destruction we've built/we're so sure that we need/then you think of the millions that money could feed/How long?" J Browne

        by rainmanjr on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 10:32:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Yes (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VL Baker

      He is not just like Obama and Clinton on the environment.  If you track down what he's been up to in detail his words and actions speak for themselves.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site