Al Gore: Trump has had 'less of an impact on environment so far than I feared'

[Biden My Time]

Source: The Hill

Former Vice President Al Gore said Monday that President Trump has not damaged the environment during his first 18 months in office as badly as he feared.

Gore, a Nobel Peace Prize winner for his anti-climate change efforts, told The Associated Press that Trump's administration has, however, done "some damage" by undoing a slew of environmental regulations, including many put in place by the Obama administration.

“[Trump] has had less of an impact so far than I feared that he would," Gore said. "Someone said last year his administration is a blend of malevolence and incompetence.

“I think they’ve made some mistakes in some of the moves they’ve made," he continued. "The courts have blocked some of what they wanted to do as a result.”

Read more: http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/401684-al-gore-trump-has-had-less-of-an-impact-on-environment-so-far-than

---

Maybe this reassures people worrying about the climate. Maybe Trump hears it and thinks Gore is challenging his Massive Orange Potency and doubles down on destroying the ecosphere. I honestly have no idea what to make of this story.

[pnwmom]

1. I wsh Gore hadn't said this. Undoing a "slew of environmental regulations" isn't a little thing.

And how much damage did Gore think DT could do in a year and a half?

[lapucelle]

29. "The Trump administration has made some dangerous changes to environmental policy,

but the damage so far has been less than it initially appeared, former Vice President Al Gore said in an interview Monday.

“He (President Trump) has had less of an impact so far than I feared that he would. Someone said last year his administration is a blend of malevolence and incompetence,” Gore said in an interview with The Associated Press in Greensboro. “I think they’ve made some mistakes in some of the moves they’ve made. The courts have blocked some of what they wanted to do as a result.”

Even the Republican-controlled Congress has stepped in at times, he said. “The U.S. system has a lot of inherent resilience,” Gore said. “It’s hard for one person, even the president, to change things very quickly if the majority of American people don’t want them changed.”

This is the story as reported by AP rather than The Hill's "interpretation".

https://apnews.com/5b37cb0f82f34645ade0ee3168691bfb/Gore:-Trump-not-yet-as-damaging-to-environment-as-he-feared

[pnwmom]

31. I still disagree with Gore. I don't see how he can say the damage has been less

when there hasn't been time for the damage to appear or to have been assessed.

[lapucelle]

32. I think Gore's criticism is too mild as well.

I think Gore means that because the courts and even Republicans has put a brake on Trump's plans, the damage is less than it could have been, but still dangerous.

[pnwmom]

33. Hasn't he taken some actions on regulations that don't have to go through Congress?

For example, he slashed the sizes of at least two national monuments.

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/363180-five-things-to-know-about-trumps-national-monuments-order

And he announced that the effects of toxins like asbestos on water, air, and land would no longer be included in risk assessments, and has allowed for the approval of new asbestos products.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/is-epa-allowing-asbestos-products/

Those were just the two that came to the top of my mind, but there were others.

[lapucelle]

34. He has. My point is that Gore is not downplaying the damage

in the way that The Hill is leading us to believe. The Hill is framing a right wing narrative that is not supported by their interpretation of the AP interview.

[mr_lebowski]

2. It sounds like a cherry-picking hit/spin-job from The Hill ... that's just my guess.

Much of this is very cleverly caged by the author to give a certain impression ... read it a second time and this time, really pay attention to what's actually in quotes ...

I want you to consider BOTH possible interpretations of this quote:

“I think they’ve made some mistakes in some of the moves they’ve made," he continued. "The courts have blocked some of what they wanted to do as a result.”

Think about your FIRST impression, based on the framing that came before it (downplaying, right?) ... and then, after thinking a little deeper, after further review ... what do you think do you he REALLY meant?

They've fucked up (based on their insane goals), and thus didn't get as extreme of crap through as they were hoping for.

I think that was Gore's overall message here, but it's being majorly distorted. They've failed to pull off QUITE as evil of a scheme ... as what they wanted to do. That is what he was really saying, I think.

[Gary Gary]

4. The Hill is all about snappy short clickbait headlines

Gore explained that the courts have blocked many of his moves. Gore praised the courts, not Trump.

[JohnnyRingo]

3. Well, he's been pretty busy with all the fake news and Omorosa.

I'm sure Trump will get around to laying waste to the world as we know it during his second term. Give him time, or better yet, don't.

[Oppaloopa]

5. He must not know about our massive red tide problem here in Florida.

[former9thward]

10. The red tide is not human caused.

The Spanish saw it off Florida in the 1500s.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2018/08/news-longest-red-tide-wildlife-deaths-marine-life-toxins/

[jcgoldie]

14. The article you linked does not say what you say it does

While it does reference Spanish reports of red tide in the 1500s, most of the article discusses hypotheses as to how human activity is making it longer and worse such as climate change and agricultural runoff.

[former9thward]

18. They cite one paper which they admit is "controversial".

They also point out the red tide in the New England area is not human caused. Maybe you should read all of the article. Or maybe you should cite articles which back you up.

[jcgoldie]

22. I read it did you?

Here are a couple quotes:

Once there, however, many researchers believe the algae feeds on the nutrient-rich agricultural runoff from land, causing it to stick around for longer and rage more intensely. Some researchers say more study is needed to know for sure. But others say it’s cause and effect.

“All phytoplankton and all harmful algal blooms need nutrients, and if you add nutrients, then they'll bloom,” says SCCF's Bartleson.

What's more, recent exceptional red tide years seem to follow massive storms, Bartleson says. Both 2004 and 2005 were intense hurricane years in Florida, with multiple storms crisscrossing the state. Tons of rain and thus nutrient-rich runoff flooded into the Gulf. And then in 2005, a 17-month long red tide—the longest in Florida's records—gripped the state. Hurricane Irma blew through in 2017, which again led to massive runoff that perhaps is driving this latest bloom, says Bartleson. Scientists predict that as the climate changes, such storms will become even more intense and frequent, which could spell trouble for the future.

...

But other researchers see it cut and dry. “We're seeing more because there is more,” Bartleson says. In a controversial study in 2008, University of Miami scientists Larry Brand and Angela Compton examined the last 50 years of data on K. brevis blooms, reporting that between 1994 and 2002, the blooms were 13 to 18 fold more abundant than those striking from 1954 to 1963.

According to Brand and Compton’s study, human-released nutrients were driving this startling rise. The pair credited more people living in Florida, and more agricultural runoff. Each year brings more nutrient-rich waters—often laden with slimy cyanobacteria—flowing from Lake Okeechobee down the Caloosahatchee river out into the Gulf of Mexico. “Those freshwater algae die, release all those nutrients, and that just feeds right into the [K. brevis] algae,” says Brand.

Ignoring all of that and claiming that article supports your claim that humans aren't the cause seems pretty similar to saying climate change is "cyclical".

[former9thward]

23. Don't change the goalposts.

The poster I replied to said Gore must not know about the red tide. What does that mean exactly? Since the OP is about Gore and Trump it means the federal government is doing something in the last 18 months to cause the red tide. Ok, what? Why is there a red tide in the NE states?

[jcgoldie]

24. What?

I'm responding to your post entitled "the red tide is not human caused" ... evidence for which you used an article that spends significant time discussing the human causes that contribute to the red tide.

[former9thward]

25. This is a thread.

And sub thread. Posts are made in context with one another. If you want to cherry pick and attack with the context, fine. I don't play that game.

[jcgoldie]

26. Cherry pick?

Your post literally had a title, one sentence, and a link. The single sentence in the body was a fact discussed in the article, but at least half the article that YOU chose to support your assertion did not support it. I don't see how that is cherry picking in any way. Sorry to hurt your feelings.

[former9thward]

28. I have ten times the posts you do.

If I was worried about hurt feelings I would have one tenth. I just don't play games. BTW I posted an article for discussion purposes which I thought was fairly even handed. I have yet to see an other articles which back other positions.

BTW do you agree Gore does not know about the red tide?

[jcgoldie]

30. congratulations

Nope I trust Al Gore knows 10 times more about environmental issues than I, and I have a great deal of respect for him. I show his film to my geography students and its even more true today than it was 13 years ago IMHO. In fact a guy stopped in my driveway earlier this summer to ask about beekeeping because he could see my hives from the road... when I got to the part about how everyone has to feed sugar in the spring because the climate is changing and the colonies explode before flowers are blooming and then subsequently starve, he started arguing with me about how its cyclical and I got so pissed I told him to be on his way. Al Gore opened my eyes to climate change. I am a bit puzzled about Al's comments saying that Trump hasn't been as bad for the environment as he thought. It seems to me he's been an utter disaster, how could he have been much worse?

[Tursiops]

17. phosphorus and nitrogen from agricultural and urban runoff

There are two outbreaks in Florida

https://www.ecowatch.com/floridas-algae-crisis-2594563082.html

[MFM008]

6. Thats why

Its VITAL we box this maggot in in 85 days.

[edbermac]

7. That's because he's been too busy fucking up everything else.

[still_one]

8. Geez, what a stupid statement. WTF is Gore looking at. Everything from rolling back the fuel

standards, getting out of the global warming agreements, and gutting the EPA

The reason Gore hasn't seen any impact yet is because IT HASN'T WORKED ITS WAY INTO THE SYSTEM YET, but where in the hell does he think its going

[Turbineguy]

9. Yes.

But he still has time.

[PatSeg]

11. Poor Donald

He is such an underachiever, but he's destroying everything as fast as he can. He's probably spread himself too thin.

[PatSeg]

12. Welcome to DU!

Love your name and profile pic!

[Biden My Time]

20. 2020 Joe, Baby!!!

[PatSeg]

21. Joe will always be my first love politically

And I've found fellow Bidenites to be some of the best people in the world.

[jcgoldie]

13. Well

Gore knows this shit better than me but its hard to imagine anyone being more intentionally detrimental to the environment than Trump has been. Turning the EPA into a complete farce on purpose is just the tip of the iceberg. The way asshole Trump works I sure hope they don't report these comments on fox and friends or he will likely take it as a challenge to do more damage.

[Nitram]

15. a story in the Post reported the same thing. They pointed out that Pruitt was extremely ineffective

and clumsy in his attempts to weaken the EPA. Somebody smart who understood how a large bureaucracy works could have done far more damage. As for Trump, you need good lawyers with government experience to dismantle an agency like the EPA, and Trump doesn't have the patience to work with good lawyers.

[Raine]

16. This is a relief to me

if Gore is correct, I sure hope he is.

[olddad56]

19. perhaps that is because the long term affect of Trump's stupidity will take years to be realized.

[awesomerwb1]

27. You're not helping Al

I agree with a couple of comments above. What a stupid thing to say at this point in time.

[Bengus81]

35. Real smart Al,he's only been in office 18 months...now you've told the Trumpanzies

That everything he's done to reverse years of EPA and GW regulations hasn't really done much to harm anything. My GAWD.............