Global warming: the value of a Gore presidency

[Admiral Loinpresser]

There is a meme which has emerged arguing against a Gore candidacy in 2008, namely that Gore would be more effective in his current role as a private citizen. Because I have encountered variations of that statement several times in the past few months, I want to address it. While I disagree with it, I don’t discount it out of hand. Rather, I would like to present the rationales for it, as best I understand them, along with the arguments in the other direction.

Case for Gore as private citizen to combat global warming:

1. As a citizen, Gore can say what he wants. He can swing freely at the interests (big oil, right-wing think tanks, etc.) which continue to spread disinformation about the climate crisis. As president, he would have to be more circumspect in his advocacy.

2. As a citizen, Gore’s efforts are untarnished by the appearance of partisanship. As president, many elements on the right would (and corporate media elements might) make ad hominem attacks, saying his advocacy was politically motivated.

3. As a citizen, Gore can focus entirely on climate crisis. As president, he would be distracted with other important issues.

Rebuttal to that case:

1. It is true that being president does place limitations on what one can and should say. However, the presidency is the “bulliest” (no Colbert copyright!) pulpit on the planet. Whether it is JFK on the Apollo project, LBJ talking about the need for a Great Society initiative, or Dubya talking about the need to confront an “Axis of Evil,” when a president speaks, he can set the agenda in the US, or even internationally. Presidential pronouncements almost always have larger real-world consequences than that of any private citizen. We need a president who will be DEDICATED to setting the agenda on climate crisis. I believe Gore more likely than any other Dem to promulgate the presidential rhetoric needed in 2009. As president, his bullhorn will simply be much, much bigger.

2. The Dems are historically likely to take back the White House in 2008. No matter who that president is, the right wing will attack initiatives on climate crisis. In other words they will attack whomever we elect. Since that is by far the most important issue, why not have the one who is head-and-shoulders above the crowd in his qualifications to deal with the issue?

3. As president, Gore will certainly have other important issues to address. But so would any other Dem. Who is most likely to keep the necessary focus, Gore or somebody else? Gore has already proven that he can “walk and chew gum” at the same time as VP. When he held national office he was able to succeed at various initiatives in parallel. As examples, he was able to head the highly successful REGO plan (which reduced federal employee headcount to its lowest level in decades), be a strong advocate for US intervention against genocide in the Balkans, etc., and yet still save the Kyoto Accord in 1997. In other words, Gore is personally responsible (see below) for our current global framework for fighting global warming, despite his other impressive roles as Vice President.

MOST IMPORTANTLY…

It is day-and-night critical who occupies the White House, as to whether the world advances on climate change.

Example 1: The UN initiative to combat global warming, UNFCCC, is launched in 1992 at Rio de Janeiro. Bush 41 sabotages the meeting and no agreement is reached.

Example 2: At Kyoto in 1997, the talks break down and no deal is expected. On the next-to-last day, Gore flies to Japan (against the unanimous advice of his advisors: see The Prince of Tennessee by David Maraniss, pp. 287-288) and addresses the assembly, lobbies privately with key countries and gets the negotiations back on track. The result is the Kyoto Accord, implemented in 2005 and our current global framework for dealing with global warming.

Example 3: Bush 43* sabotages all efforts to combat global warming.

In other words, who is in the White House is historically VITAL to whether the world does or doesn’t make progress in treaty efforts to combat climate crisis. No American politician, Democratic or Republican, has produced a major international treaty concerning global warming… except Al Gore.

We are all experiencing the frustration of having the wrong person in the White House. Private citizens are so far unable to stop the insane escalation in Iraq. Gore, although effective to a certain degree with what he is doing on global warming, is still largely held in check by the moron currently living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, especially with respect to international treaties.

Here is my question: in 2009, would you rather that Gore be a private citizen or The Decider?

[Ice4Clark]

1. The decider

[evlbstrd]

2. K & R.

I love it when you use big words.

[BuelahWitch]

3. Run Al Run!!

:bounce:

[Gregorian]

4. Sadly, it won't make much difference.

I can already hear the shouting. But the truth is, we are not the largest carbon footprint on the planet. The other part of the equation is population. One that Gore and Hawkings and all of the rest have not adequately addressed. And rightly so. What can we do about that? Not much. Each person on this planet is creating this stress. India is just beginning to manufacture small cars for everyone. Not good. So is China. That is a third of the planet's population, in yet more cars.

We needed a good leader in 1970. Yes, it IS too late.

I'm not saying let's not do anything. Just the opposite. This is an emergency. And we need a president who will legislate for a smaller carbon footprint. But the real issue is, are people going to follow? Or in other words, are people willing to sacrifice? That is a big NO. Maybe everyone on DU forums. Maybe everyone in San Francisco.

I think Gore can do more as president. But I don't think it matters much any more. It's just a matter of how much we can slow down the wreckage.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

7. I grant you,

you may be right. There is a long lag time between the emission of pollutants and the significant effects. Plus there is the consistent phenomenon that effects and prediction ranges are usually worse than indicated in earlier models. The polar icecap is melting. The Greenland Ice Shelf is much less stable now than it was 10 years ago. And yes, in the next treaty China and India will have to step up from their second-tier status in Kyoto.

Still there are offensive tactics we can employ. We can radically change carbon emission levels, actually reducing them fairly soon with sufficient political capital. We can employ aggressive reforestation. We can begin re-greening urban-based metroplexes. Amazing things are possible with great leadership and an adequate response from the nations of the world.

And, as my Irish mother used to say, "Where there's life, there's hope."

[Gregorian]

9. I hate to be the bearer of bad news. But it seems that's what I do best.

There IS a lag time. And that fact makes things worse, not better. It means we haven't even seen the global warming resulting from our present consumption yet.

And it gets worse. The CO2 that is in the atmosphere now is going to be there for a long time. Around 120 years. Even if we cease all activity that creates carbon dioxide, we'll still be living with the effects of global warming for a number of decades. And we're only a few years from reaching the critical 450 ppm of carbon dioxide particles in the atmosphere.

There are a couple of things that I use as baselines for my thinking. Extreme cases. But they are only theoretical as they are highly impractical. In 100 years, every human could live out their life, and without reproduction the planet would be at a population of zero. And, we could stop all combustion right now. But that would mean that everything we know and do in terms of a modern society would cease. Every electrical outlet would go dead, except for the few photovoltaic and nuclear and hydroelectric powered grids. Every car would stop. Every factory that was on a coal or fossil fuel grid would stop.

And remember, the population is still skyrocketing. With each new baby, we put ourselves into a more critical situation. Every baby has a carbon footprint. In America, a big one. In Darfur, a small one. But the babies are being born in the countries that are joining the modern civilization.

I'm far less than optimistic. The reason I say that is because the sacrifice required to change the situation is so draconian it hardly makes sense to consider. And it would have to happen right now. Two things that are not going to happen.

Oops. This was supposed to be a simple thread about Al Gore. Sorry. :)

[Uncle Joe]

14. As nations develop, their population growth rate decreases,

developing nations have far more children because they have such a high mortality rate. Another dynamic to consider is the development of new technologies to alleviate energy consumption and possibly scrub C02 from the atmosphere. I consider doing nothing, the most draconian measure as the results will be far worse than the changes needed in order to survive as a species. I believe we still have time, although the window is closing and the largest obstacle to overcome is getting past the inertia. I also believe when the people truly wake up and they are beginning to stir, the motivation and effects of rapidity from change will be startling, and yet inspiring.

I'm also looking forward to Al Gore's upcoming book titled "Solutions" for more answers.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

17. That's right.

Plus as countries develop, the female educational levels also tend to rise, which also has a negative impact on birth rates.

[Uncle Joe]

19. I agree, Admiral, The program NOW from this past Friday seemed to show a shift

in cultural mores in India where traditionally they have been marrying girls off at very young age but not consummated with their husbands until they reached puberty. Their families were so poor, they had to in order to survive. I believe they may be looking at the benefits of educating these girls first and waiting later for them to marry and I believe this may decrease their birth rate as well.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

18. I don't think your second post added much bad news.

I think I indicated that you are possibly right based on our previous posts. But I don't think we have to get all the industrial-revolution carbon out of the atmosphere in 120 years. What we have to do is reverse the trend of increased CO2 concentration levels in the annual North American carbon cycle. Sure we will continue to experience climate change, but some of it can actually be positive if it includes massive reforrestation. Nobody knows whether civilization can survive at this point. But there is a moral imperative to give it our best shot.

[Gregorian]

21. Well, I like that thinking.

But... Always a BUT.

But with more people being born every day, we need houses. Roofs. Medicine. And all of the rest. And a lot of that is forest "products". And if not forest, then where? Petroleum? Mining?

Your post is a good one. An optimistic one. And probably more realistic than my doom and gloom. But we have a long way to go before I'm convince people are thinking ahead like that.

And remember this, reforestation doesn't really add to significant carbon reduction for the first thirty years. And even then only a fraction in comparison to other life forms.

But there has to be hope. I personally have to remember that, for my own survival. It is difficult to have been so keenly aware of this problem for nearly forty years. I was having discussions about this on a regular basis when I was only a kid back in the early seventies, believe it or not.

[Blue Belle]

10. Who else besides Gore is seriously adressing the climate crisis?

Hillary? Obama? try again. They do throw some rhetoric in that general direction but they pay as much attention to global warming as they do gay marriage and immigration.

[peacetalksforall]

11. Sen Clinton leans corporate and is DLC.

Certain corporations support the pnac-corporate-baron plan because they don't want accountability and laws to comply with - they don't want OHSA or anyother limits on their profits or court pay-outs. From hints, it appears corporations want her for the Dem candidate as a back-up to a wash out of Republicans. Just my gut - but I pick up from the hints on corporate tv, editorials, commentary,from her voting record on bills that benefit corporations directly and her trends.

She is a two way winner for them - corporatiaons - they can sustain and build on the intense hate from some of the Republican voting bloc. They might get away with sustaining all-out corporatism.

What good will Gore's work be as an outsider if a corporate representative is in the WH and can continue signing statements or executive orders or have the support of a dominant DEM voting block in Congress that eats from the hand of the corporations?

All of this assumes her nomination. I push for someone else. My first choice is Al Gore.

We can't just slow corporatism, we must reverse corporatism. Same with the other destruction of our earth - the nature one.

We must sway stockholders. Here's hoping the children of the stockholders will help influence the parents who profit from war.

[joshcryer]

16. You lack an appreciation for the power of green capitalism.

The USA may not have the biggest carbon footprint (though I'd dispute that per capita), but it certainly is the biggest consumer of raw resources (which come from other places that contribute to the carbon footprint). Thus if the US was to essentially sanction other countries for their carbon use, there would be opportunities for green profit out the ass!

[Gregorian]

20. I agree. But there is a shift going on.

Two billion people are starting to turn on their hot water, and start their engines. Of course, they'll never match the consumption we did after world war two.

My best case scenario for the planet is that as we use less, and the major populations of the world come online, we'll slowly decay into a smoldering mess. Melted icecaps, massive extinctions. And I say that because of the century long lingering of the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere.

And remember that it takes petroleum to produce all of those photovoltaics. We may have to fight fire with fire for quite a while before we're even somewhat independent of oil.

But then, the US only has four years worth of petroleum under it's soil, at the rate we're using it. And the remaining oil is far from what it used to be. So maybe we'll run out of oil before we get too much further.

It's going to take sacrifices that people won't willingly make. Not before they are forced.

[RestoreGore]

5. "The Decider?"

Why are you using a BUSH phrase? And no then, I don't want him to be the "decider" and I doubt very much that he would approve of that wording either. And he is not now a private citizen after winning the Nobel Peace Prize. He is the global leader regarding this crisis which now brings him power to influence policy worldwide including in this country, and nothing is more important than that now. Not even your still trying so very hard to sell your "rock star product" which seems to be all you see Mr. Gore as.

[JTFrog]

22. At least the OP would let him out of his box.

I see you still have Mr. Gore contained in the isolationist Global Warming box. Too bad that's all YOU see Mr. Gore as. Of course you wouldn't want him to be the decider when you've already decided you know what he wants more than anyone else.

Once again, it seems rather selfish to exclude Mr. Gore from any endeavors in life other than crusading for global warming. He still expresses an interest in politics and I hope that he decides to get involved again (sooner rather than later). Should he decide to get involved, I seriously doubt that he would allow anything to interfere with his global warming efforts. He has already proven that as Vice President. If anything, he would be in a much more powerful position to ensure necessary actions are taken to support his cause. Any private citizen is going to have limitations when it comes to making and enforcing laws that will be necessary to start cleaning up our environment. He has stated himself that the most influential position to make changes from would be the Presidency of the United States.

Has Mr. Gore hired you to be his decider? I didn't think so.

Perhaps you should stick to writing fluff pieces.

[RestoreGore]

24. And who made you MY decider?

All the usuals here do is "sell their product" and it is now overkill. Talk about putting someone in a box. Run or I won't your efforts... that is the only message one gets from the PUFFY bs posted here by the same syncophants day in and day out. And I am not excluding the man from anything HE has not excluded himself from. So perhaps you should stick to minding your own business where I am concerned.

[JTFrog]

25. I'm not anyone's decider.

Where did this OP say run or else? Can you not move on from shitting on other people's hopes 24/7 to something a little more productive?

Who is going to listen to your call for action in the streets atop of that pedestal of yours?

[cascadiance]

6. As long as we have a growing corporatocracy, this crisis will only accelerate and get worse!

Al Gore the private citizen doesn't have power to correct this problem! And if the corporations still have power, we're just going to have more and more problems trying to ratify treaties even like Kyoto, which pales in comparison to what sort of action is actually needed.

Al Gore the president would have THE most power to correct this problem, and therefore be more effective at achieving the goal winning the battle of fighting global warming.

[peacetalksforall]

12. You're right, if dick and george had the power to destroy policies,

another President will have the power to reverse them. With the help of non-corporate Congress, of course. Let's wish this world good fortune by this election.

[Mabus]

8. In Gore I trust.

[Mabus]

23. K&R

for the Monday Morning crowd.

[rosesaylavee]

13. That's right.

If the USA is to participate in the solution, it needs his leadership. Thought it rather polite of you that you didn't mention the 'lost years' in between the Bushes when Clinton could have supported it and didn't.

I am not feeling that polite today.

[OneBlueSky]

15. even if he doesn't win (which he will), a Gore candidacy brings the issue . . .

front and center in the public consciousness . . . with Al Gore as a candidate, there is no way the corporate media can continue to ignore global warming -- and the contributions that mega-corporations make to it . . . at least it will get the discussion going . . .