While I think Gore has provided an incredible push toward waking up the general public to the state of the environment, I find it odd that people automatically take this as a sign that he ought to rerun for president (and that he would win) on what is basically a single platform.  As Hertsgaard points out, he likely has much more influence and freedom to push his platform outside of the Whitehouse (whose power has diminished under it's current occupants).  Also, I think it's fair to say that, when he was running, he seemed extremely uncomfortable, stiff and less than able to negotiate and schmooz with both domestic and foreign politicians.  Now, I'm certainly not saying that I wish he hadn't won then, but he seems as if he's found his element and I doubt taking a step back and getting back into politics is going to improve the situation.

...if not president, I'd say he'd be perfect for head of the EPA.

   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

Even Cheney can't do Anything He Wants as vice-president.  I don't think you understand the stranglehold that polluters have on our government.  Exxon-Mobil, Duke Energy, etc and so on, pretty much own outright many members of Congress, and strategically, so that they can stop legislation that will decrease their profits.

Al Gore is a hero who deserves the gratitude of the entire planet.  Including you.

Gore absolutely did NOT come to global warming after the disastrous 2000 election. He has been fighting for environmental reforms since the 1970s while also holding public office. It wasn't until after the 2000 election that he decided to make it his life's work.  To claim otherwise is simply not correct.

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?

If that's true, then why, since 1970 has pollution gone down precipitously and energy efficiency gone up something like 80%.

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.

CNN says Al Gore just declared he supports gay marriage!  That is huge!  That is just about the saintliest, most grace-filled event in US politics in ages!

Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.

As Hillary mentioned during the Grist debates, they don't talk about climate change because people still don't care about climate change.

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

Guys-- Come to my house at five. We have just got to start this campaign. Death to water pollution! Stop the rain NOW!

Grumble on greens! grumble, grumble, grumble...

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.

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 *

Al Gore made the good choice by staying faithful to his environmental engagement. Politic is not allways compatible with ecology and humanism.

When we look twice to things in the nature, they may certainly reveal their aura.

The Clinton Administration proposed the BTU tax in 1993.  Congress killed it.

I firmly believe that Al Gore is the kind of man who should run for president this time.  I think however that the wrong people have been asking the wrong question of this man.  If he truly wants to make this a better planet and truly believes that the US can lead the way then the questions should not be asked about whether he will run, but rather how can he run.  He feels, as stated in the article, that only from the grassroots can real change occur, and he is right.  At this time in history, we are seeing the resurgence of the public's involvement in the election process.  If he were to run, as an Independent, and run not only to become President, but to bring to Congress Independents as Representative and Senators, he could lead into Washington an army that could actually do what needs to be done in this nation.

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

A net worth of about $100 million does not make Al Gore one of the richest people on the planet.

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

Now Bill Gates, there is a person we need to get interested in the environment.

Someone hasn't heard of the Bill Gates Foundation.

   in one takeoff from his private jet in one year than an entire year of my driving around.
    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

Like "duh!"  Yes, I know about the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. They do not do environmental grants. Here is the statement about the kind of grants they give right from the foundation web site:

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