As Hillary, Obama, and Edwards continue to slug it out in the early primary states, one name is conspicuously absent among the Democratic candidates to become the next president of the United States. Where is Al Gore? The man who received more votes than George W. Bush did in 2000, who served eight years as Bill Clinton's vice president, and whose climate change evangelism has been rewarded with an Oscar and Nobel Peace Prize has resolutely refused to enter the race, even though he might well have won it.
Ever since the documentary An Inconvenient Truth catapulted Gore to international superstardom in 2006, countless citizens and opinion leaders at home and abroad have urged him to pursue the presidency. For its 2007 Person of the Year issue, Time magazine asked Gore if he did not have "a moral obligation" to run, given the unparalleled power of the White House and the urgency of the climate crisis. Gore gave much the same answer he has been giving for months now: although he had "not completely ruled out the possibility," he did not expect to run for office; the best thing he could do to fight climate change was to stay focused on "changing public opinion."
Pundits find it hard to believe that a lifelong politician could turn his back on the White House; some speculate that Gore is being coy, waiting to see if other candidates stumble. I doubt it. As someone who has covered Gore's climate activism for 15 years now, since first interviewing him at the U.N. Earth Summit in 1992, I think he sincerely believes that changing public opinion is more important than changing presidents. What's more, Gore has good reasons for this unconventional conclusion -- reasons that deserve our attention, for they suggest the kind of battles that must be fought and won if catastrophic climate change is to be avoided.
I spent two hours one-on-one with Gore just before An Inconvenient Truth was released. Much of our interview focused on an irony that seems to have escaped many of those who have urged him to run for president: the last time Gore served in the White House, he failed to deliver much progress against global warming. During its eight years in office, the Clinton-Gore administration did not pass a single major law against climate change. It did sign the Kyoto Protocol, but only after watering it down with crippling loopholes, and then it chose not to seek Senate ratification of the treaty.
In our interview, Gore acknowledged these failings. But he argued that the blame lay not with him or Clinton, who, he said, "was much more responsive than not." Rather, Gore said, "the resistance was tremendous" from the status quo. The two richest, most powerful industries in American history, oil and autos, were fiercely opposed to cutting emissions, as were coal and electricity companies. Kyoto was "blocked by pressure from the polluters," Gore told me, adding that ExxonMobil and other big companies "purposely confused people" with tens of millions of dollars of advertising and lobbying that misrepresented and disparaged the science behind global warming. This disinformation campaign encouraged "massive denial in the country as a whole" and "conditioned the battlefield" in Washington so that Congress ended up blocking reform.
The lesson Gore seems to have drawn from his defeats in the White House is that being president is not enough to create real change, especially if powerful interests are against you. The only way to defeat them is to recondition the battlefield -- to build such a pervasive wave of public pressure that no matter which politicians get elected, each will feel compelled to take action, even if it means disappointing ExxonMobil and friends. As Gore told Time, the climate crisis "requires a fundamental shift in public opinion at the grassroots level to embolden members of the legislative branch to take action."
A case in point: In December, for the first time, a Senate committee passed a major climate change bill. Many environmentalists cheered the Warner-Lieberman bill, which promised to cut greenhouse-gas emissions 70 percent by 2050. But the bill's provisions, especially one giving polluters free pollution permits, suggest that it will deliver much smaller emissions cuts than advertised. Corporate influence, it seems, remains plenty strong on Capitol Hill. Gore called the bill, which the full Senate will soon consider, "not sufficient." He urges more radical action, including a ban on new coal-fired power plants. He has even encouraged young people to blockade the bulldozers attempting to build coal plants.
The three leading Democratic presidential candidates all understand the climate issue well and promise to do big things to address it. So, to a lesser extent, do Republicans John McCain and Mike Huckabee. But if any of them succeed as president in reversing Bush's disastrous climate policies, he or she will owe Gore an enormous debt. Gore's years in the White House appear to have taught him a vital lesson about modern democracy, a lesson that is omitted from most textbooks and news coverage: being president, like being right, is not enough. The only way to beat organized money is with organized people, lots of them. Gore is now helping to build that grassroots pressure, even though it means giving up on the presidential dream he has harbored since childhood. His is an act of vision and sacrifice, one for which all of us should be grateful.
Climate talks timeline: From 350 to Kyoto to Copenhagen and beyond
Gore on the Daily Show: extended dance remix
Comments
View as Threaded
wildleaf Posted 11:11 pm
23 Jan 2008
The Black Car Project Killing cars before they kill us!
Permalink
stevenearlsalmony Posted 11:41 pm
23 Jan 2008
Perhaps the time has come again for you to run for the US Presidency. You won the job once already. This may be the remaining unfinished work of your life.
The United States was meant to lead the world in our time. Admittedly, things have not gone well recently; however, no other country has the wherewithall to do what is necessary by means of providing the community of nations with adequate leadership.
People around the world are looking to the United States for moral leadership, but apparently see our country as a woefully inadequate exemplar today.
As you put it, since "we have to travel far quickly," there is not time to waste....no sensible reason for waiting.
All the current presidential candidates in the USA are not talking about the real issues of our time. You and you alone can "re-center" our national debate on issues like the unsustainability of increasing conspicuous per-human over-consumption of limited resources; the unsustainability of skyrocketing absolute global human population numbers; and the soon to become patently unsustainable, seemingly endless growth of large-scale, industrial/corporate activities, now threatening to engulf the surface of the planetary home God has blessed us to inhabit and, I suppose, not to ravage.
Sincerely,
Steve Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/
Permalink
katc Posted 1:37 am
24 Jan 2008
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 1:54 am
24 Jan 2008
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:49 am
24 Jan 2008
the blame lay not with him or Clinton,
Gore had 8 long years to do anything he wanted. He wasn't the President and he could have used his time to lay the groundwork for "Global Warming".
He didn't. What was he doing those 8 years? (I keep asking the same thing about Hillary...the silence is deafening.)
Gore only found Global Warming after the public soundly rejected him. Oh yeah, the vote was close, but Gore should have had a landslide...he was part of one of most popular administrations in history. And the economy had not yet tanked.
Gore has been using "global warming" to account for his own failings as a person. The hypocrasy of his own life cry out for exposure!
Viva la Climate Resistance!
Permalink
bookerly Posted 3:12 am
24 Jan 2008
Now the real irony will be if after he leaves office, GWB decides to devote his life to fighting global warming....
Seriously, though, Gore's point of view is correct.
If you agree with him, you should stop and think about what is wrong with America's system of governance that has allowed it to be hijacked by a small number of wealthy individuals (and the organizations they love so well!).
patrick in Beijing
Permalink
andrewbacon Posted 4:01 am
24 Jan 2008
Al Gore is a hero who deserves the gratitude of the entire planet. Including you.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 5:12 am
24 Jan 2008
I don't think you understand the stranglehold that polluters have on our government.
If that's true, then why, since 1970 has pollution gone down precipitously and energy efficiency gone up something like 80%.
These are pretty flimsy evil guys if they let things go like that.
And 12% of all land is owned by groups like Nature Conservancy....and it will probably be 25% in another decade or so.
Who is to blame then? Al Gore is one of the wealthiest people on the planet right now. He has already been a Senator, a VP and a Nobel Prize Laureate. He has legions of zombies will to carry out his bidding ( I know from all your attacks).
What else does he need? What is he waiting for? Go ahead, stop warming the globe, Al! Do it...I dare you!
Viva la Climate Resistance!
Permalink
rong Posted 5:57 am
24 Jan 2008
As far as Gore being one of the wealthiest people on the planet, I have never heard that anywhere. Are there some figures to back that up?
Permalink
katakanadian Posted 6:15 am
24 Jan 2008
Pollution has not truly gone down. It has merely been exported to ther countries and the nice shiny merchandise resulting from that dirty manufacturing is imported.
One of the great fallacies expounded by Lomborg and his ilk is that wealth paves the way for improved environmental standards. Asia's pollution has skyrocketed compared to modest drops in First World pollution but most of their exports get sold to the First World. In a decade or two (if business as usual continues), China may well be rich enough to start cleaning up it's own backyard but how will do that? I expect they will just shift their heavy polluting industries off to the next region poor and desperate enough to take them on, probably Africa. What happens when Africa gets rich enough to demand a better environment? Will there be any place left to pawn off so much filth? At what point will climate change topple this pyramid scheme?
We have to accept the costs of our own greed and stop dumping our problems on others. Start with splitting carbon emissions from internationally traded goods between the importer and the exporter. China wouldn't need to build 50 dirty coal plants a year if First World demand for cheap stuff wasn't so great.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 7:30 am
24 Jan 2008
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
tboggia Posted 9:47 am
24 Jan 2008
People cheer when energy independence is mentioned way more than for carbon neutrality. Don't expect the candidates to talk about something that most people still don't care about.
Instead, look at what the candidates are proposing. John Edwards has the most ambitious and realistic climate plan, + an economic stimulus plan entirely focused on creating green jobs.
Don't ask Al to run, he still has too much work to do getting people to be salient about Climate change. Vote for the candidate with the best plan.
T
Focus the Nation on January 31st 2008
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 9:50 am
24 Jan 2008
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/117/features-gore.htm ...
After years of public service--and four kids needing high-priced educations--Al and Tipper used to fret occasionally about money. Not anymore. They have a new multimillion-dollar home in a tony section of Nashville and a family home in Virginia, and have recently bought a multimillion-dollar condo at the St. Regis condo/hotel in San Francisco. Available data indicate a net worth well in excess of $100 million.
Viva la Climate Resistance!
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 9:54 am
24 Jan 2008
The original ecologists were protesting real pollution like sulpur dioxide. Now, thanks to catalytic converters, electronic ignition and other high tech marvels, our cars produce almost no pollution...except for CO2.
That's why Al Gore had to create a myth about CO2 -- because otherwise there would be nothing for the Greens to grumble about.
And once we lessen CO2, they'll be complaining about H2O pollution.
Viva la Climate Resistance!
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 9:57 am
24 Jan 2008
Gore absolutely did NOT come to global warming after the disastrous 2000 election.
Mr. Rong. Will you please name the significant legislation championed by Albert Gore during the period 1992-2000 which addressed the issues of Global Warming and Climate Change?
Otherwise, here is a dime...go and call your mother and tell her that you will never be a serious ecologist.
Viva la Climate Resistance!
Permalink
FreBird Posted 12:31 am
25 Jan 2008
[The only way to defeat them is to recondition the battlefield -- to build such a pervasive wave of public pressure that no matter which politicians get elected, each will feel compelled to take action, even if it means disappointing ExxonMobil and friends. As Gore told Time, the climate crisis "requires a fundamental shift in public opinion at the grassroots level to embolden members of the legislative branch to take action."] We are that "grassroots level", we the people. You have the power to change things. Go to a step-it-up rally, check out 1sky.org, if you're a parent or teacher check out gogreeninitiative.org, start a framers market or a local environmental group. It's our moral obligation to build the grassroots green movement.
"We are now faced with the fact, my friends, that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding conundrum of life and history, there is such a thing as being too late. Procrastination is still the thief of time. Life often leaves us standing bare, naked, and dejected with a lost opportunity. The tide in the affairs of men does not remain at flood-it ebbs. We may cry out desperately for time to pause in her passage, but time is adamant to every plea and rushes on. Over the bleached bones and jumbled residues of numerous civilizations are written the pathetic words, "Too late." There is an invisible book of life that faithfully records our vigilance or our neglect."
- Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.
Permalink
mirandalea Posted 1:52 am
25 Jan 2008
Grumble on greens! grumble, grumble, grumble...
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 3:45 am
25 Jan 2008
And once we lessen CO2, they'll be complaining about H2O pollution.
I don't know where you've been, but if ya think that after we reduced sulfur, taht there was no pollution, and we made the whole thing up outta boredom...then I suggest ya finish up the peanut butter sandwich your mom packed ya and head off back to kindergaten class now.
Also, in case ya haven't noticed, we've been tryin' to battle water pollution for, oh I don't know, only a few centuries now.
And even a cursory glance at water pollution research topics should tell ya that * gasp * CO2 is a water pollutant! And * gasp again * increased levels of CO2 lead to increased acidification levels in water! Just like the forementioned "real" pollution of sulfur.
Gee, who'd guessed? * rolls eyes *
Permalink
Lihidheb mohsen Posted 7:04 am
25 Jan 2008
When we look twice to things in the nature, they may certainly reveal their aura.
Permalink
cce Posted 3:08 pm
27 Jan 2008
Permalink
devnoll Posted 8:33 pm
28 Jan 2008
So the question you need to ask him is: Are you ready to be a President who leads not from day 1 as Hillary asked, but rather from the moment you step forward as a candidate? Are you ready to run so that you can do what you believe is truly right or are you willing to let things go on as usual?
If he can answer "yes" to both these questions, then he can lead an army of people into not only Washington, but into Congress as well. If he does not have the ability to make his vision a reality, or thinks he does not, then all that he stands for is not worth a hill of beans because it will never become reality. Leaders, real leaders, are people with a vision and the ability to make that vision reality. If we believe in Al Gore's vision,then we have to let him know that we will run for Congressional offices and help him build the organization that will make the vision a reality if he will truly lead. Then ask him to run.
Devon J. Noll
Permalink
cmello Posted 12:16 am
29 Jan 2008
Forbes Top 400 in the US all have net worths of a minimum of $1 billion.
The CEO of the company I work for takes home nearly $100 million in salary, bonuses, stock options, etc, each year.
Now that Al & Tipper have some money, I am not going to throw brickbats at them.
Now Bill Gates, there is a person we need to get interested in the environment. He has over $50 billion. Imagine what he could do for environmental issues with his money and still have plenty left over for a comfortable life for his wife and kids.
cmello
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 2:16 am
29 Jan 2008
Someone hasn't heard of the Bill Gates Foundation.
Permalink
bkrmtn Posted 4:19 am
29 Jan 2008
He should buy some exercise credits so that he could trim up a little bit. It seems to me that a lot of the people who buy all these green energy credits seems to think that they can do whatever they want as far as energy consumption goes.I'm sure that he could take commercial flights more often as well could have updated his home much sooner than he did.His monthly energy consumption for his house was three times the average home energy bill - and that was just for a single month.
I appreciate that he's made the world much more aware of the damage we're all doing. On the other hand his personal choices remind me of Barbara Streisand spouting off on how we all need to do our part. I'm guessing that her idea of cutting back is not driving around in a Prius
From what I could find online even Big Al's stock portfolio was far from green.He's done some good, maybe even redeemed himself a little .I wouldn't call him my hero. Don
Permalink
cmello Posted 2:31 am
18 Nov 2008
Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren Buffett set our overarching grantmaking priorities--such as improving health and reducing extreme poverty in the developing world and improving high school education in the United States. They establish high-level goals for our grantmaking programs. Then our three program teams devise a strategy for meeting these goals.
So my statement stands: We need to get Bill and Melinda interested in environment issues so they can add it to their list of programs which are eligible to receive grants.
cmello
Permalink