CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Al Gore Talks About The Environment in the NY Times - A Good Article
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Al Gore Talks About The Environment in the NY Times - A Good Article

post #1 of 42
Thread Starter 
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/21/opinion/21GORE.html" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/21/opinion/21GORE.html</a>

The Selling of an Energy Policy

By AL GORE

ASHVILLE — Under the presidency of George W. Bush, the environmental and energy policies of our government are completely dominated by a group of current and former oil and chemical company executives who are trying to dismantle America's ability to force them to reduce the extremely dangerous levels of pollution in the earth's atmosphere.

The first step was to withdraw from the agreement reached in Kyoto to begin limiting worldwide emissions of greenhouse gases. Then the administration cancelled an agreement requiring automobile companies to make the leap to more fuel-efficient vehicles.

Other acts of sabotage are taking place behind the scenes. Just as Enron executives were allowed to interview candidates for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission — and to veto those they didn't think would approve of Enron's agenda — ExxonMobil has been allowed to veto the United States government's selection of who will head the prestigious scientific panel that monitors global warming. Dr. Robert Watson, the highly respected leader of the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change, was blackballed in a memo to the White House from the nation's largest oil company. The memo had its effect last Friday, when Dr. Watson lost his bid for re-election after the administration threw its weight behind the "let's drag our feet" candidate, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri of New Delhi, who is known for his virulent anti-American statements. Why is this happening?

Because the largest polluters know their only hope for escaping restrictions lies in promoting confusion about global warming.

Just as Enron needed auditors who wouldn't blow the whistle when the company lied about the magnitude of its future liabilities, the administration needs scientific reviews that won't sound the alarm on the destruction of the earth's climate balance.

How long they get away with it depends on how long they can sow confusion and doubt. But with folks wearing bikinis in Boston in the middle of April and with the massive melting of ice at both poles and in nearly every mountain glacier on earth, public awareness and concern are growing rapidly.

At a time when the world needs enduring leadership from the United States to rally all nations to join in a concerted effort to stop global warming, the administration is working overtime to block any progress whatsoever.

So tomorrow, on this Earth Day, more than ever before, we need real, forward-thinking leadership and a renewed focus on the environment. True leadership means ensuring that we take the necessary steps to leave a cleaner environment for generations to come — and that means strengthening environmental protections.

Instead, this administration's so-called Clean Skies initiative actually increases air pollution levels by allowing more toxic mercury, nitrogen oxide and sulfur emissions than does current law. Put simply, on the environment, this administration has consistently sold out America's future in return for short-term political gains.

True leadership means guaranteeing our national security and role as a world leader — and one of the best ways to do this is by decreasing our dangerous dependence on foreign oil, so that America cannot be held hostage to oil imports and tinhorn tyrants like Saddam Hussein. But instead this administration is now investing less in energy innovation and conservation and more in corporate subsidies for oil exploration and extraction and nuclear power.

True leadership means assuring an economy that rewards innovation and productivity. We can do so by leading the world in investments in technological innovations that will result in environment-friendly products like more efficient cars and renewable energy sources. Such investments would open up the door for new economic growth. But this administration is taking only those steps that increase our addiction to fossil fuels and outdated and inefficient technologies.

On all these fronts, this administration has walked away from the tough choices and has instead chosen to subsidize the solutions of the past. Instead of leading, it has attempted to mislead. Instead of sharing a vision with the people, the administration has given access to special interests.

We can return to the path of progress, on which we value economic growth that rewards innovation and productivity and meets the needs of our families and of national security. We can return to the days of record growth coupled with record improvement in the air we breathe. We can return to true leadership on the environment.

We ought to look at the environment as a critical piece of the nation we will be. I urge Americans to re-engage in a forward-looking discussion of how to secure our nation's energy needs while pursuing environmental policies that will make us safer, more efficient and more respectful stewards of our planet and our nation's great potential.

Al Gore, vice president from 1993 to 2001, is a professor at Fisk University and Middle Tennessee State University.

post #2 of 42
I could pull apart this article line by line to showcase some of the falsehoods and exaggerations that Mr. Gore has plopped out. Rather, I think it's more interesting to look at the underlying current that runs through this piece; it's that often felt state of mental being known as "I could do so much better than you."

Gosh. If only Al Gore had say... eight years to work on such a project; imagine how much better the environment would be if someone like Al Gore had held a high position in the US government for around eight years. Things would have been so much better for all of us because there's no way that someone like Al Gore would ever squander eight years (approximately) as a very high ranking official in the US government, when there is much that needs to be done for the environment. With eight years (give-or-take), Al Gore would have propelled the US into some very sound, environmentally friendly policies. If only Al Gore had had those precious (around about) eight years...
...what a world we could be living in.
post #3 of 42
I agree. It's much easier to attack a person than address the ideas he or she raises. Thank Christ for penetrating observations on Al Gore's status as a politician, eh?

post #4 of 42
It's true Adam. Ridicule all you want, but the guy had 8 years to form environmental policy. All he's actually managed to do was put a book out there filled with as much misinformation as The Population Bomb. Irrelevant.
post #5 of 42
Quote:
Adam Warren:
I agree. It's much easier to attack a person than address the ideas he or she raises. Thank Christ for penetrating observations on Al Gore's status as a politician, eh?
Hmmm...much the same way a certain column was picked apart recently. I think the focus -or the diversion of said focus- on the dissection of Ann Coulter's article was how bad a writer she was and not on the deeply thought out points she was trying to make.

Double standards again.

And the best reason I see for not dissecting Al Gore's article is simple: He's irrelevant, therefore his article is too.
post #6 of 42
post #7 of 42
Quote:
Adam Warren:
I agree. It's much easier to attack a person than address the ideas he or she raises. Thank Christ for penetrating observations on Al Gore's status as a politician, eh?
Listen, Adam. If I make a personal attack on a politician, I'll spell it out in real big letters.

Something like this:

*L G*RE HAS ANAL SEX WITH DONKEYS, THEREFORE HIS ARGUMENT IS IRRELEVANT... AND HE CAN'T DANCE WORTH A LICK EITHER.

My point goes something like this. I can shoot off my mouth, I can write a column, I can protest on the streets, but my point of view carries very little fricking weight because I am in no position to do anything in regard to any national political position. The hilarity of Al Gore mining (pun intended) the environment for his own political gain, when he wasted eight years as the second most powerful politician in America is beyond the meager capabilities of my brain to cope with. Is that a personal attack?

post #8 of 42
Burke, your observation is very true. The problems of the environment haven't developed in the last year and a half, and the tone of Gore's article would almost have us believe that.

To me this is more classic Gore/environmentalist nonsense. They throw out a lot of observations and hypothesis that are stated as fact and accuse, accuse, accuse. Very few actual examples are given, merely the same anti-oil rants as always. The Kyoto and automobile emissions things are genuine points of concern from an environmentalist POV that I can understand. The rest of this article is for Al Gore's career.

Which is sad because, as in his Florida speech, he fails to address the real issues we face right now. The environment is an issue he's always going to win. He's preaching to the choir. Right now the average American voter is focused on the war and homeland security. If Al Gore's trying to get into the White House then he's going to have to face the issues of the day which is terrorism.

Oh wait, his administration was terrible at dealing with that......
post #9 of 42
Quote:
...because I am in no position to do anything in regard to any national political position...
Do what the leftists seem to be fond of supporting these days...pop off a bomb in a public place. This seems to be the prefered method of "protest".
post #10 of 42
Kronos, you really have to believe that in order to feel secure within your own skin? I'm certainly more liberal in my thinking, if we are trotting out the labels, but I'll listen to all sides before I make my decision. To turn everything into right vs. left is such a sad simplification of reality.
post #11 of 42
Maybe he's just trying to live up to his "partisan lunatic" status..

Seriously, it is an example of the fine state of discourse in the US that when a radical liberal/conservative is foaming at the mouth over something or other, it often (rightly, in many cases) gets blasted as "typical partisan blather";

Of course, should a liberal/conservative make a valid, cogent point worthy of discussion, it often gets blasted as "typical partisan blather."

Some of the wonderful spoils of our 2 party system, and I would expect better of CHUDdites (although evidence suggests I'm mistaken).

But Gore really is talking out of both sides of his face - he and Clinton had 8 years and they did roughly squat until they were voted out of office - recall Clinton's flurry of "green-friendly" legislation in his last days, stuff I was happy to see but was most likely done with the main intent of making Bush look even worse on the environment than he is anyway.

A college ex-friend of mine (long story) was the son of a corporate trouble shooter who was employed in Tennessee for a while, co-iciding with Gore's tenure as a Congressman, and he informed me that Gore's "Green-ness" lasted up to the point that companies made generous campaign contributions.

Fuck Al Gore.

&lt;note: partisan blather ahead&gt;
Ah well, when W and his oil cronies get their oil derricks set up in backyards in the Rockies and oil rigs floating in the Great Lakes and off the Florida coast (oh wait, that's right, Florida is off limits because Jeb is the guv), we'll finally be free of the terror of foreign oil.
post #12 of 42
I certainly have no problem with people taking Al Gore to task, just wish Kronos would watch his elbow while he's masturbating.
post #13 of 42
Morons
post #14 of 42
Kronos:

Hmmm...much the same way a certain column was picked apart recently. I think the focus -or the diversion of said focus- on the dissection of Ann Coulter's article was how bad a writer she was and not on the deeply thought out points she was trying to make.

Actually, I pointed out various errors in her writing, mainly that she made no real point which one might address, and then dismissed her. Certainly some personal attacks were made. I'm not perfect. But your double-standard theory is balmy despite my imperfection. Not to mention bizarre, since Gore raises relevant issues despite his obvious political aspirations, which is something I felt Ann Coulter did not do.

Tell me this is irrelevant:

"But instead this administration is now investing less in energy innovation and conservation and more in corporate subsidies for oil exploration and extraction..."

I suppose some would like to think this is no more debatable than ice-cream flavours. But the article is full of pertinent issues.

____________________________________

Burke:

My point goes something like this. I can shoot off my mouth, I can write a column, I can protest on the streets, but my point of view carries very little fricking weight because I am in no position to do anything in regard to any national political position. The hilarity of Al Gore mining (pun intended) the environment for his own political gain, when he wasted eight years as the second most powerful politician in America is beyond the meager capabilities of my brain to cope with. Is that a personal attack?

Yes it is an attack, though not one of the "UR GAY" variety. And it is a valid point—Al Gore the politician may well be exploiting the environmental movement for his own devices. But it's rather obvious, and in spite of a possibly unscrupulous agenda on the part of Mr. Gore, debatable points are raised. So rather than passing the entire article off as hogwash, why not ignore the silly partisan stuff and address the ideas. Simply boffing the writer doesn't hold water—only diverts it.

But if you'd rather sit around slamming Al Gore and environmental loonies with call and Stew, feel free. Bush and his arch-conservative cronies get plenty of flack around here.

post #15 of 42
My God, there are times when you people can act like such children.
post #16 of 42
Se folks? See how it feels to have someone drop in for a one-liner that might sting a bit. Kevin, you didn't like what I said about many leftists' support for murder/suicide bombers? Did I forget to use the word "many"? Sorry. I seem to have dropped the ball a bit in my own version of the hit and run so deftly practiced by many here.

So if it's masturbation you want I am not the one who practices it here.
post #17 of 42
Quote:
Cheese Biscuits:
My God, there are times when you people can act like such children.
Hoity-toity, aren't we grand.
post #18 of 42
Mock me all you want. I love reading these threads when they turn from being intelligent debates into personal wars.
post #19 of 42
Now you are saying that many liberals support suicide bombing? I'm sorry, what poll are you referencing - I mean, besides the pole your hand was gripping when you typed that bullshit.

post #20 of 42
Heh heh...alright, I'll let you say that and be done. After all, we wouldn't want to entertain the rabble that much would we?

However: I'd love to see the protestors in Washington hold up signs condemning the murder/suicide bombers. As it is we don't see even tacit support from the left for the condemnation of Palestinian terrorists.

All we see are calls for the withdrawal of Isreal. The converse must therefore be true of at least those leftists attending the protests.

Is this point agreeable without the self-abuse references?
post #21 of 42
Quote:
Adam Warren:


Yes it is an attack, though not one of the "UR GAY" variety. And it is a valid point—Al Gore the politician may well be exploiting the environmental movement for his own devices. But it's rather obvious, and in spite of a possibly unscrupulous agenda on the part of Mr. Gore, debatable points are raised. So rather than passing the entire article off as hogwash, why not ignore the silly partisan stuff and address the ideas. Simply boffing the writer doesn't hold water—only diverts it.

But if you'd rather sit around slamming Al Gore and environmental loonies with call and Stew, feel free. Bush and his arch-conservative cronies get plenty of flack around here.
When Al Gore says we need to protect the environment, I say yes.

When Al Gore says we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, I say yes.

When Al Gore says that the current administration is harming the environment at a much quicker pace than the previous administration, I say huh.

When Al Gore says we need alternative energy sources, I say yes. When Al Gore doesn't propose any workable alternatives, I say hmmmm.

When Al Gore brings up the Kyoto treaty in the second paragraph of his article, I say partisan maker of political hay, exactly where were you when they were trying to pass that screwed-up treaty five years ago.

As soon as he brought up the Kyoto treaty, I knew that this was an unprincipled attack, meant to wound Bush and puff up Mr. Gores own appeal.

Did all of this really need to be said?
post #22 of 42
Quote:
devilf:
Morons
Smilin' Jack Ruby is not a moron. I'm offended on behalf of Chud's beloved Smilin' Jack.
post #23 of 42
Quote:
jabbadonut:
I care more about having a viable working economy that is growth directed and prosperous than I do about any environmental concerns. I DO NOT FUCKING GIVE A FLYING FUCK if some wildnerness reserve for fucking animals is oil drilled into oblivion. If that oil drilling contributes to me having some job security, then I'm all for it. If George Bush's policies mean I'm going to be able to retire in my present position, then I am behind him 100%.

I am opposed to anyone whose policies or political agenda would adversely affect my job.

As far as the environment goes, this earth can take more punishment than we will EVER be able to dish out. Thinking otherwise is giving humanity too much credit. We are a part of this world. Whatever we do is part of the natural order, whether anyone believes that or not. Man, by nature, is a builder and a consumer of resources. The earth will protect itself from us if it has to. So, I am just not too concerned about the environment. It was here long before man, and will be here long after we're gone.
Ah, a true Bush right-winger.....

I can see your point, though, jabba - it's not like we live in some magical world where we can derive electric power from the wind, sun, and rivers; or <a href="http://www.biodiesel.org/" target="_blank">run cars on biological matter</a>.

As a life-long resident of the natural jewels known as the Great Lakes, I do NOT want to go to the beach and see oil rigs rising out of their waters; thus I oppose drilling in ANWR and SENSIBLE environmental development. I realize that a healthy economy and ergo, a strong country necessitate some exploitation of the environment, but is trampling and sucking dry our natural resources really "progress"?

There is no reason, given Bush's desire to "wean ourselves from Mideast oil", that there cannot be a concerted effort to "wean" people from their Lincoln Navigators and Chevy Suburbans to a more reasonable sized car (granted, some do require these vehicles for various purposes; but the single Yuppie who commutes on a Florida freeway does NOT); to "wean" Bush and Cheney from letting 'Big Oil' have a say in our energy policy (unless they will give the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, etc EQUAL (or any, for that matter) say); "wean" energy companies from polluting, coal-fired plants to clean nuclear, solar, wind, and hydroelectric power sources; and so on.

You have the opinion that Earth can take whatever we dish out; I'd rather not put it to the test. This view is unfortunately tarnished by the fact that many environmentalists tend to be extremist and/or alarmist (I don't think I really qualify as a 'green' but I am sympathetic to their view) - I recall the late 70s being filled with concern about the 'next Ice Age'; not 20 yrs later we were frightened by 'Global Warming.' Well, which?

But if those are your views, at least you are up front about them, which I respect - there's nothing worse than, say, W's sophistry on ANWR - it's obvious he will use any excuse or tack to open it to drilling, mainly because it's there. Which is his position, and I wish he'd just cop to it instead of performing circus-like contortions to sway the public. But I think using mankind's intelligence to be caretakers of the planet is much nobler than being mere exploiters.
post #24 of 42
I wish Bush would go ahead and make some decisions on a lot of things (foreign and domestic). There's nothing I can't stand more than a president who sits on his hands... I hate Shadow presidents. He may fuck up making some decisions, but at least he would have tried to do something (as long as he doesn’t do another Vietnam, set Alaska on fire, or layoff every citizen in the country, I won’t be too pissed). I liked Bush a lot once because I thought he'd come in a do some things, make some changes. Did that happen? Nope. Is it going to happen? I doubt it. I still think McCain would have been a very badass president.

And (before someone points it out to me again) just because I don’t like Bush a whole lot doesn’t mean I’m liberal. It just means Bush isn’t doing so hot.

(edited because I can't spell worth a damn )

post #25 of 42
Quote:
Cheese Biscuits:
just because I don’t like Bush a whole lot doesn’t mean I’m liberal. It just means Bush isn’t doing so hot.
Which puts you a damn site ahead of every "liberal/conservative bad always" idiot who lurks out there - and there are too damn many of them.

The "do SOMETHING" is basically what the US wants in a President. Why is Reagan so revered by the right? Because he did shit. Why was Jimmy Carter such an abysmal failure? Because he spent his time waffling over what the best course of action leading to the best result and making the most people happy would be (which is a wonderful thing in most situations), instead of merely pushing forward his agenda; Carter's post-presidency shows he's a sharp cookie and a good man.

Clinton wouldn't move without consulting a poll. Fuck that - a President MAKES public opinion, he doesn't cater to it.

Bush would do well to learn that lesson. I dislike him, but I dislike wafflers far more than staunch conservatives; at least you can pin down a staunch conservative and debate.
post #26 of 42
Aww..man! Things went and got downright civil in here again!
post #27 of 42
Quote:
Kronos:
Aww..man! Things went and got downright civil in here again!
I could call you a "Nazi knob-gobbler" if it would make you feel better. wink
post #28 of 42
I have yet to meet an American who's for the Kyoto Treaty that has actually READ it. Its the same problem with supporters of the Green Party.
post #29 of 42
Quote:
Chavez:
Quote:
Kronos:
Aww..man! Things went and got downright civil in here again!
I could call you a "Nazi knob-gobbler" if it would make you feel better. wink
Actually Nazi Knob Nibbler is a little more lyrical.
post #30 of 42
Did all of this really need to be said?

No, because I'm suggesting that you see past the party politics. Discrediting Al Gore creates a false and distracting argument. False because Mr. Gore's politics have nothing to with the validity of his points. Distracting because the discussion turns into another Gore/Bush thread. But I digress, since this is unwarranted hectoring is getting tired. If you haven't seen my point by now, your not going to. Maybe I'm inarticulate. But take a last look at this thread. It speaks for itself, and far better than I ever could.

post #31 of 42
huh?
post #32 of 42
The Kyoto Protocol may be accessed <a href="http://docs.unfccc.de/convkp/kpeng.html" target="_blank">here</a>.
post #33 of 42
Quote:
...another Gore/Bush thread...
It couldn't be helped when there are lines such as these:
Quote:
...the administration is working overtime to block any progress whatsoever.

...this administration's so-called Clean Skies initiative...

...this administration is now investing less...

...But this administration is taking only...

...this administration has walked away from...
I kinda think Gore unwittingly made this thread a Gore/Bush thread.
post #34 of 42
And it was that pre-1990 levels business that was one of the major sticking points.
post #35 of 42
Quote:
Kronos:
I kinda think Gore unwittingly made this thread a Gore/Bush thread.
Quite true. Though how unwitting his article actually is...
post #36 of 42
Quote:
Adam Warren:
Did all of this really need to be said?

No, because I'm suggesting that you see past the party politics. Discrediting Al Gore creates a false and distracting argument. False because Mr. Gore's politics have nothing to with the validity of his points. Distracting because the discussion turns into another Gore/Bush thread. But I digress, since this is unwarranted hectoring is getting tired. If you haven't seen my point by now, your not going to. Maybe I'm inarticulate. But take a last look at this thread. It speaks for itself, and far better than I ever could.
Ok. You said I was personally attacking Mr Gore by asserting that the article was simply a partisan ploy. You agree with me on the partisan ploy bit but then say that the personal attack obfuscates the important points that Mr. Gore brings up in said article. I re-read said article for the 4th or 5th time, note some points I agree with and some I disagree with. I post said points. I am then accused of playing partisan politics, and obfuscating the issue again.

SIGH!!!!

Mr Gore brough up Mr. Bush, not me. At no point did I mention Mr. Gore's politics except to note that he was in a position to push his supposed enviromental ideals for eight years (not even commenting on whether they were right or wrong). You may not want to believe this, but I can look at issues directly, not through a partisan focus. If a Republican had written this article, I would have found the same flaws as I do with the article above.

Is accusing someone of partisanship a way of detracting from their argument or statement?
post #37 of 42
Kyoto and Enron. <a href="http://www.cato.org/dailys/02-06-02.html" target="_blank">Click here:</a>
post #38 of 42
I have this nagging suspicion that had Gore won the election, American energy policies wouldn't be much different. The administration might come over as more apologetic about it, but what's that worth?

I agree with Gore when he says things like '...the administration is working overtime to block any progress whatsoever'. This doesn't mean I think he's serious about doing things differently, though. Maybe if his speech had contained more details regarding his good plans or Bush's bad ones I'd feel differently, but as it stands his speech is mostly rhetoric. If Clear Skies is such a sham, tell us (them, I already know) why. Prove your case, Gore. Don't just talk, say something.

That goes for every other politician too, of course.
post #39 of 42
Quote:
Refrozen Seabass:
I have this nagging suspicion that had Gore won the election, American energy policies wouldn't be much different. The administration might come over as more apologetic about it, but what's that worth?

I agree with Gore when he says things like '...the administration is working overtime to block any progress whatsoever'. This doesn't mean I think he's serious about doing things differently, though. Maybe if his speech had contained more details regarding his good plans or Bush's bad ones I'd feel differently, but as it stands his speech is mostly rhetoric. If Clear Skies is such a sham, tell us (them, I already know) why. Prove your case, Gore. Don't just talk, say something.

That goes for every other politician too, of course.
This is a very fair and level-headed explanation. Nice work Seabass.
post #40 of 42
Among those lines I have trouble with the "working overtime" bit. That's a bit divisive.
post #41 of 42
Is accusing someone of partisanship a way of detracting from their argument or statement?

What statement? wink

And I'm not sure Lomborg's Skeptical Environmentalist actually demonstrates that global warming is overblown. The debate in Sientific American—amongst other publications—is fun stuff, however, and should be read. An interesting article from this CATO institute non-the-less.
post #42 of 42
And by fun, I mean gloves-off, political-forum style debate in professional news magazines.

<a href="http://www.sciam.com/2002/0502issue/0502rebuttal.html" target="_blank">Here</a>.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Al Gore Talks About The Environment in the NY Times - A Good Article