|
 |  USA Today -
Nov-06-2009Gore's book a toolbox for fixing climate crises(topic overview)
CONTENTS:
SOURCES
FIND OUT MORE ON THIS SUBJECT
Former U.S. vice-president, Nobel Laureate and prominent global warming activist, Al Gore, has >called for young people to engage in civil disobedience over the issue. Now in his new book, Our Choice - A Plan To Solve The Climate Crisis, Mr Gore devotes a chapter to analysing why climate change has failed to prompt a greater public outcry. I suspect the chapter is part therapy for Mr Gore who must be hurting after years of relentless presentations around the world which, despite warning of the possible demise of human civilisation, have failed to ignite the collective action he'd hoped for. I've heard exasperated climate scientists similarly ponder what they regard as bewildering inaction. [1] The piece states that Few people have been as vocal about the urgency of global warming and the need to reinvent the way the world produces and consumes energy. Few have put as much money behind their advocacy as Mr. Gore and are as well positioned to profit from this green transformation, if and when it comes. Which makes it sound as though Gore has been toiling for dozens of years to spread the word on environmental and climate issues just to reap profits from all that clean energy technology he invested in--not exactly a get rich quick scheme if you ask me. No wonder he's dedicated most of his adult life to schlepping around the world giving a slide show to tens of thousands of people! It was all to marginally increase the return on his future investments! Diabolical. The article neglects to mention the fact that Gore gives away all of his profits the charities that raise awareness on climate change, like the Alliance for Climate Protection. He's not poised to become anywhere close to a billionaire at all--there are no facts anywhere to support that claim. He couldn't--the money goes straight to charity.[2] JR: As I wrote back in May, if you saw Gore's terrific testimony on Waxman-Markey with former Sen. Warner (details here, full CSPAN video here ), then you saw the absurd attempt by Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) to suggest that the reason Gore has been advocating climate action for decades is to make money. FoxNews doctored the video of Gore's response to smear him, and I'm excerpting a post from Morgan Weiland and the researchers at Media Matters who first blogged on this outrage in here. On the May 1 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, during a segment suggesting that former Vice President Al Gore has profited from his advocacy of renewable energy and climate change mitigation, guest host Laura Ingraham presented clips of Gore's April 24 congressional testimony that had been edited to remove his statements that he donates the money he makes from his climate-related work to a non-profit organization. Introducing the segment, Ingraham stated: "It seems that being green does pay big time -- just ask Al Gore. Mr. Global Warming was worth about $2 million or so when he left office in 2001, but after eight years of tirelessly working to save the world, the planet, he's now reportedly -- get this -- worth a whopping $100 million. His financial windfall came up at last week's Capitol Hill hearing."[3]
Al Gore is in the spotlight again with his must-read solutions book -- "Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis. " And that means the daggers are out. Who would have imagined that one of the first pieces would be by the NYT's John Broder, who repeats the false claims by "Critics, mostly on the political right and among global warming skeptics," that "Mr. Gore is poised to become the world's first 'carbon billionaire,' profiteering from government policies he supports that would direct billions of dollars to the business ventures he has invested in." I'm going to repost a piece by Media Matters from May that looks at one of the despicable origins of this smear, " O'Reilly Factor guest host Laura Ingraham presented clips of Al Gore's recent congressional testimony that had been edited to remove his statements that he donates the money he makes from his climate-related work to a non-profit organization[4]
Climate change ''' a threat we can neither see nor smell and whose impacts we can only glimpse ''' requires a special and urgent effort using parts of our brain that we don't usually use. Gore's new book, the result of more than two years of consultations with leading scientists, technologists, economists and, yes, neuroscientists, is his attempt to lay out a detailed solution to the climate crisis. It is an attempt to spell out in a way that ordinary readers can understand the current state of technology and what still needs to be invented to bring a low-carbon world to reality. There are passages where it becomes a little dense, but for the most part it is a worthy sequel to An Inconvenient Truth, full of optimism about the promise of science to solve this urgent crisis ''' although perhaps it skims over the possible changes that we all might need to make to our lifestyles. While it explores all technologies from nuclear to "clean coal", the book leans heavily towards the renewables such as wind, solar and geothermal energy, arguing that the economics of nuclear and the uncertain viability of carbon capture and storage make them less viable. If you are looking for tables that offer cost comparisons per unit of electricity generated, this book will leave you wanting.[5] AL GORE, climate change campaigner and former U.S. vice-president, wants to build "a green cathedral". By that he means he wants leaders and their communities to do what the communities in the Middle Ages did when they worked for generations to erect the great cathedrals of Europe. He wants us to give up short-term thinking and instead turn on the parts of our brains that allow us to react not just to threats we are conditioned to but threats such as climate change that can only be understood through reason. "Human nature. makes us predisposed to short-term thinking and to automatic responses to the threats that our ancestors survived," he explains in an interview about his new book, Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis. "It means we must use our reasoning capacity to discern more serious threats that can only be understood through analysis. We have a capacity to develop goals based on shared values and stick to those goals." Gore says humankind has done this in the past: the seatbelt movement, the anti-smoking movement, the abolition of slavery and, of course, those great cathedrals ''' all achieved over generations working towards shared goals.[5]
Video after the jump. They discuss Gore's new book 'Our Choice' which focuses more on the solutions to climate change than its predecessor, the now ubiquitous 'Inconvenient Truth.' And Jon gets to the heart of many people's concerns with climate issues.[6] That's just one of the questions Jon Stewart asks Gore when the former vice president sits down to talk about his new book about finding solutions to climate change. Consider this a companion piece to my earlier post defending Al Gore from the New York Times ]] defending Al Gore from the New York Times --and watch Gore prove himself to be the knowledgeable climate spokesman he is.[6]
Every penny of it. People hate Gore--by spreading the word about climate change, he appears to be advising people how to live, and people do not like to be told how to live. I will no doubt get comments on this very post that call Gore a 'hypocrite' or claim that he lives in a mansion that consumes more electricity than Times Square. These people have perhaps never heard of an ad hominem argument, and don't understand that these kind of attacks are inherently fallacious. Gore certainly knew that he was entering contentious waters when he began giving his slideshow years ago--and it takes guts to continue to do so, even while powerful people are determined to drag his name through the mud. Gore has arguably done more to educate the public about climate change than any single other figure, and he supports and invests in companies that are part of a low carbon energy solution.[2] The green blogosphere has been alight with the startling news of the latest hit job on Al Gore. Startling news of a hit job on Al Gore? What is this, 1999? Gore, and the many people who appreciate the good work he's done have gotten used to deflecting baseless attacks ]] deflecting baseless attacks from political opponents, the fossil fuel lobbies, and those who'd like to see the nation go right on polluting. The startling news this time was that the hit job came from the New York Times. The piece by John Broder, which ran a couple days ago, attempts to cast doubt on the fact that Al Gore was both advocating legislation that would support a transition to a clean energy economy government and (Gasp!) investing in clean energy technologies.[2] Gore's vision for the grid of the future is one in which solar, wind and geothermal provide the main power, with huge batteries used to flatten out the peaks and troughs caused by cloudy days, drops in wind strength and other fluctuations that are the downside of renewable energy. Gore sees a grid that allows for and encourages distributed generation, such as photovoltaic cells on the roofs of many houses, hybrid car batteries used to store power at night and community power stations that might use solar or even biomass to generate power. Gore frankly admits that the battery part of the plan is still a work in progress, but being the optimist that he is, he is sure the battery capacity ''' at a reasonable cost ''' is not far away. "The super grid will create the kinds of markets for electricity generation distribution and storage that the internet created for small devices that process, transmit and store information,''' he predicts. Gore's decision to put his money where his mouth is and invest in a small company, Silver Spring, developing smart-grid technology, was cited this week by The New York Times as a conflict of interest. The criticism clearly angered Gore, who hit back at the allegations he is the world's first "carbon billionaire" by saying he is just backing his beliefs.[5] Gore said that with new technology, it is possible to substitute old technologies with "far more efficient technologies." He said that during his eight years in the White House, every problem with nuclear proliferation came from these nuclear enriching energy plants. He drew a comparison to Iran possibly trying to begin a nuclear proliferation program. Gore said it is hard to promote nuclear energy because the world does not want certain countries to have access to these nuclear technologies for safety reasons.'' It also can be unsafe, and it will take a lot of time, money and effort to find the sources of geothermal energy. He said this energy source does work and can be used, but wont be the option of choice most of the time because of the difficulties and expenses necessary to capture it.'' He said the government will need to subsidize these new sources of energy in order to get them off the ground.''[7]
Gore is also a big fan of geothermal power, arguing that outside the expert community it has largely been dismissed because of the cost and difficulty of tapping into the heat beneath the earth's surface. He provides maps of where the hot zones are around the world, going beyond the ones we know well, such as Rotorua and Yellowstone. "Assuming appropriate improvements in technology over time, geothermal could provide a significant fraction of U.S. primary energy needs in a sustainable manner for electricity generation and for the heating and cooling of buildings," he argues. There is some bad news in the book for those hanging their hats on carbon capture and storage as the means to clean up coal and allow it to continue to be used.[5]
Gore said solar energy is the future, and scientists are working on improving ways of harboring that energy. "They are getting very good about capturing it and converting it into energy," Gore said, referring to scientists capturing the sun's energy. He said this form of energy is growing across the world, and other countries are utilizing solar energy better than the U.S. Gore said solar energy is actually a cost effective energy source and will save people money in the future. Gore said, however, that the only way these technologies will become cheap and accessible, is if people show a demand for it. This is the heart of Gore's book, talking about the way improving the environment can actually be cost effective.'' He said the single largest factor to global warming is energy.[7] Few people have been as vocal about the urgency of global warming and the need to reinvent the way the world produces and consumes energy. Few have put as much money behind their advocacy as Mr. Gore and are as well positioned to profit from this green transformation, if and when it comes.[3]
"Critics, mostly on the political right and among global warming skeptics, say Mr. Gore is poised to become the world's first 'carbon billionaire' …" Critics like loony Rep. Marsha Blackburn and denialist propaganda hack Marc Morano. These are the people driving the NYT news operation now.[3] Centered around, "which do we put first the state of our planet or the state of our economy," at one point Colbert One (or was it Colbert Two?) just says "recession" over and over again to argue the point. Who's really the best person to debate global warming? Al Gore! And what do you know, he has a new book, Our Choice, to shamelessly and hilariously promote. Gore appears next to Colbert and does what any of us would love to do to a global warming skeptic. he dunks Colbert in a tub of water.[8] After the last 12 years, the rest of the world still sees the United States as the leader of the world community. Because we're both the strongest economy and one of the two largest emitters and recognized as the natural leader of the world community, it's important for us as Americans to fully appreciate the role we play. Since this is the most dangerous challenge the world has ever faced and since the scientists have given us fresh warnings that we don't have a lot of time to reduce global warming pollution, it's really important for the United States to play the role the rest of the world expects us to play. Gore: It would be one of the elements that would convey that sense. Gore: It depends on the circumstance. I hope he will go.[9]
In April 2008, 71 per cent said there was solid evidence of rising global temperatures. That will be depressing news to Gore, who has spent the millions from his first book and its movie version on campaigns to take the message on climate change to the American public and the world. It also does not bode well for the U.S. Congress agreeing on targets ahead of next month's meeting in Copenhagen to establish a new climate treaty.[5] Greenhouse gases are transparent to sunlight, but trap heat, warming the atmosphere. Man-made gases raised global average atmospheric temperatures about 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit since 1905, according to the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and will likely raise them 3 to 7 degrees by 2100, depending on future emissions. "It's good news that Gore is proposing solutions, because one criticism of (2006's) An Inconvenient Truth was that it was lacking those," said Chris Mooney, co-author of Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens our Future. "Nevertheless, given his political history, there's no way (that) part of the country will listen to him."[10]
The fact checking follows jibes over small errors in An Inconvenient Truth, the documentary that turned Gore into an icon of climate change. "If opponents didn't think I was effective, they wouldn't complain about me," said Gore.[10] Stephen Power talks to former Vice President Al Gore about climate politics and policy. Count Al Gore among those who think President Barack Obama should go to Copenhagen in December for a United Nations conference on climate change.[9] The event starts at 7 p.m. and is being held in Lisner Auditorium. The former vice president will be promoting his new book, "Our Choice," which focuses on climate change.[7] Gore's wife, Tipper, is in the audience, as well as members of the Board of Trustees and the D.C. government. Before we get underway, take a look at'' this ''article in Newsweek for a better explanation of the focus Gore's new book, which he will talk about tonight. '' The difference between An Inconvenient Truth and Our Choice, according to this article, is that Gore's focus has shifted from the individual and their impact on the environment, to corporate America and how big companies can make changes to lessen their environmental impact.''[7]
The joke drew laughter from the crowd.'' Gore is not a static speaker, and is walking back and forth across the stage as he delivers his lecture to the audience. She said she cannot understand how everyone in the U.S. is not on board with the movement, and said she feels Gore's new book will be a great tool to get more Americans on board with the "Green Revolution." Knapp said he views Gore as a leader in the sustainability movement, and told the audience that we are lucky to have Gore as a speaker here tonight.[7]
The news media have fallen for it, says Gore. "The carbon polluters' propaganda campaign has had such success in paralysing the political process in part because the news media has abandoned one of their traditional roles ''' that of refereeing important arguments in the public domain," he says. He attributes this lack of scepticism by the media to the financial problems of newspapers and the tendency of the media to resort to putting the two views in lieu of analysis. "On the one hand is the global scientific consensus and on the other ''' given equal weight ''' are the crackpot theories of industry-financed deniers," he says.[5] Gore: No. Gore: At this point, the amount of money the government has put into GM and is beginning to pay some dividends. They're coming back and a lot of jobs are being saved, but there's a worldwide race in the automotive sector to dominate the global marketplace for electric vehicles. It's responsible in my view to take steps similar to what other nations have done. I think its good public policy.[9] Washington Wire: Sen. Schumer has sent a letter to the Energy Department urging the department not to use any federal stimulus money to support a $1.5 billion wind project in Texas that is being backed by a Chinese firm, unless the project relies on U.S.-built turbines and other components. Gore: I haven't read the letter ' I think the real significance of that wind farm is as an illustration of how far behind we could fall as China and other nations race to establish their leadership in what many regard as the key industry of the 21st century '. They're building an 800-kilovolt supergrid that's the most impressive in the world. They've planted two-and-a-half times more trees than the rest of the world combined, in each of the last three years. They've added CO2 reduction to the formula by which all their official are evaluated for promotion. It's quite a dramatic change. Now, they're still opening another coal-fired plant every eight or nine days, so the picture's not all rosy. It's very impressive to see the extent to which they are positioning themselves to be the leaders in renewable energy.[9] Schemes providing up-front cash for home insulation are more effective than promising long-term savings. "Messages are more effective if framed to warn people that they will lose $500 over 10 years if they don't follow a particular course of action to limit climate change, than if they are told they'll be $500 better off if they do take action," the report says. Is our psychology the only reason why climate change is slipping down our 'To Do' list? Does lack of political and economic leadership, inaccessible science (how many people have really read the 2007 IPCC report?), aggressive vested industrial interests and extremist greenies all combine to dilute the collective will Mr Gore is trying to summon on this epic issue? Another one of his chapters analyses the political obstacles. David Spratt, an Australian climate activist and co-author of Climate Code Red, blames apathy on "a systemic political under-estimation of the seriousness of the problem ''' Because governments are not honest with themselves about the size and urgency of the problem, they necessarily transmit a shallow view of the problem to the electorate, who follow suit in seeing climate as an incremental problem. Voters are sold a show-bag of dinky policy actions on climate as'solving the problem', and they reasonably conclude the problem can't be all that serious.[1] Organisers of a youth rally told me earlier this year that climate change was the activist issue for their generation and that young people would turn out to protest in record numbers. You know that public movements must be struggling when incumbent politicians are forced to urge them on. UK Energy and Climate Change Secretary, Ed Miliband, and his brother, Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, have both called for more public mobilisation on climate change, although the UK government has also used anti-terror powers against some climate activists as I described in this blog last week.[1]
Citing a study by the Centre for Public Integrity, Gore says there are now four lobbyists for every member of the U.S. Congress working on the issue and the forces seeking to sow doubt about the existence of climate change or defeat plans for a cap-and-trade carbon scheme outnumber the environmental lobbyists eight to one. Without naming names, he says some of the same lobbyists who worked on the tobacco companies' strategy in the 1970s and 1980s have been brought back in to assist on fighting cap-and-trade.[5]
Surveys since 1997 suggest Gore's calls for tackling climate change mobilized Democrats, said Stanford's Jon Krosnick, while Republican views remained largely unchanged. Books like this latest one, Krosnick said, "may give a push to people already concerned about the globe heating up."[10] All the money from Gore's investments is invested in a nonprofit to fight climate change. He's not "positioned to profit." He's not "poised" to become a "billionaire."[3]
GORE: I believe that the transition to a green economy is good for our economy and good for all of us, and I have invested in it. Every penny that I have made, I have put right into a nonprofit, the Alliance for Climate Protection, to spread awareness of why we have to take on this challenge. Congresswoman, if you're -- if you believe that the reason I have been working on this issue for 30 years is because of greed, you don't know me.[3] Look down toward the bottom. "I believe that the transition to a green economy is good for our economy and good for all of us, and I have invested in it," Mr. Gore said, adding that he had put "every penny" he has made from his investments into the Alliance for Climate Protection.[3]
Gore said it is necessary to build back the world's forests in order to improve the environment. Gore said the upcoming climate summit in Copenhagen will be important to try and solve this problem.''[7] In 416 pages, Gore offers a potpourri of lavishly illustrated recipes solar, geothermal, and wind power solutions for slowing the greenhouse gases warming the climate. "It is now abundantly clear that we have at our fingertips all of the tools we need to solve three or four climate crises," Gore writes.[10] Now that the need for urgent action is even clearer with the alarming new findings of the last three years, it is time for a comprehensive global plan that actually solves the climate crisis.[7] WASHINGTON - With global warming taking center stage in world affairs, Al Gore can't be far behind: The Nobel-Prize-winning former-vice president-turned-energy entrepreneur is releasing his plan to crack the climate conundrum. "The clock is ticking with respect to solving the crisis," Gore, 59, said Thursday as he sat in pinstripes and black cowboy boots in an environmentally certified conference room, with glass walls and white surfaces.[10] Just last night, Stephen Colbert and Al Gore got together to discuss a solution to this pesky global warming problem.[11] Check out the hilarious clip below and watch Al Gore simulate what adapting to global warming will be like for Colbert.[11]
A lesser known factor to global warming is soot, Gore said. He said much of the soot comes from the burning and destruction of forests across the globe. Gore said this soot stays on glaciers.[7]
To deliver a more effective message, proponents must "''' strengthen the linkage between solutions to global warming and solutions to other challenges (economic, strategic and social) that seem more immediate and are more likely to induce a desire to make the necessary changes." A recent report released by the American Psychological Association suggests a series of practical approaches.For instance, most people want to fit in and some researchers found that people will cut their electricity use immediately if told their neighbours use less than they do. Other researchers found that people respond in the same way to future environmental decisions as they do to financial ones.[1] Washington Wire: A survey released last month by the Pew Research Center for the People the Press found that fewer Americans see global warming as a very serious problem.[9] A recent Pew Research Center poll found 65% of Americans view global warming as a serious problem, an eight percentage point drop from 2008, but still a majority.[10]
Carbon dioxide, or Co2, is a large factor to global warming. He said it is the exhaling breath of the modern industrial society, and said it is very difficult to make changes in reducing these emissions. He said its half of the problem.[7] Fewer also see global warming as a very serious problem ''' 35 per cent say that today, down from 44 per cent in April 2008.[5]
Last night Stephen Colbert debated himself on the Colbert Report in a segment he calls Formidable Opponent, the topic: global warming. It's sad to say, Colbert's debate points, crazy as always, are not too far off from the real global warming debates.[8]
Primordial human wiring is tuned to the likes of carnivorous predators, lightning strikes and blood-curdling rival clansmen. Behavioural scientists also told him that "Simply laying out the facts won't work ''' The barrage of negative, even terrifying, information can trigger denial or paralysis or, at the very least, procrastination." Sounds like a bad rap for his Academy Award winning film, An Inconvenient Truth, which helped raise global awareness of the issue. Scientists told Mr Gore that the human brain can commit to multigenerational goals although this can be undermined by constant stress and excessive distraction, both of which abound in modern society. [1] "Behavioural issues are likely to be much more important than the development of improved descriptions of exactly what happens or might happen to the climate. These are the main barriers to the actions that are needed." Mr Gore says he conducted 30 "solutions summits" with leading international experts to discuss how to design the multi-faceted battle plan in his book. They included brain scientists who told him the climate threat seemed too remote and unprecedented to trigger survival reflexes.[1] Gore simply asserts that renewables are going to come down in cost, thanks to technological advances. Gore acknowledges some of the objections to wind power, such as visual impact and likelihood of bird strikes, and tries to put them to rest. He admits to finding wind turbines a "beautiful and appealing addition to the landscape"; but in any event argues that they can increasingly be located offshore, where they are less visible and the wind is more consistent. As for bird strikes, the book cites a paper from 2002 which says the number of birds killed by windmills is 0.5 per cent of those killed by communications towers and 0.03 per cent of those killed by house cats.[5] Citing work done at MIT, Gore warns that it could be many years before carbon capture can be made viable at the scale required for power stations. He is also sceptical about the ability to retrofit plants and warns that it will require older power stations to burn a third more coal just to power the compressors that are used to inject the CO2 into the substratum of rock where it is to be stored. Likewise he is lukewarm on nuclear power, arguing that it is not the silver bullet many people see, in part because of cost but also because it will create a whole new raft of security concerns around the world.[5] At the centre of Gore's vision for a renewables-driven energy future is a "super grid", a new efficient transmission system that will make it efficient to transport electricity from distant solar plants and wind farms without the same sort of power loss that occurs in a conventional grid.[5]
Today we have our answer: The New York Times, which has run a truly absurd and embarrassing piece from John Broder. It casts about desperately seeking something sinister about the fact that Gore invests in clean energy technologies.[3]
This comes up from time to time, but it's good to see former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas), a new ringleader for right-wing activists, state it plainly. "The largest empirical problem we have in health care today is too many people are too overinsured," he said.[4] The health-care reform bills emerging from the House and Senate, when melded and enacted, will constitute an epochal achievement: the near-universal provision of medical care to the American people. The House version is clearly the more epochal, as the health coverage it provides is more universal, chiefly because it's more affordable. For families who buy their insurance on the exchanges that both bills establish, for instance, the House bill includes more generous subsidies -- on average, $1,000 more, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The House bill also offers a lot more assistance to Medicare recipients by reducing the cost of their prescriptions. While the bill that emerged from the Senate Finance Committee renews the Bush administration's mega-bucks gift to the drug companies by continuing to prohibit Medicare from negotiating drug prices with them, the House bill authorizes those negotiations. The Senate bill reduces by half the payments that Medicare recipients must make for prescription drugs that fall into the "doughnut hole" (annual drug expenses are covered up to $2,700, and coverage kicks in again at $6,100, but for all purchases in between, Medicarians are on their own).[4] A House Republican health-care bill wouldn't seek to prevent health-insurance companies from denying sick people insurance, Minority Leader John Boehner said Monday.[4]
Hours after the House Republicans healthcare "reform" plan was released and universally mocked, Rep. Boehner cried foul, insisting that this unauthorized leak was of a draft bill that wasn't finalized and hadn't been seen by members.[4] Last night, the Congressional Budget Office released its analysis of the House Republican alternative health care bill.[4] Sen. Olympia Snowe's (R-Maine) opinions on health care policy have taken on quite a bit of significance in recent months. That's a shame. Today, for example, she was asked for her opinion on the House reform bill, which may get a vote in just 48 hours. "I do not know what world they live in," Snowe said, apparently in reference to House Democrats. "But all I know is it is totally detached from the average person, the average business owner who is struggling to keep their doors open and to have that level of taxation is breathtaking in its dimensions.[4]
I just think it is so out of proportion with reality and with mainstream America that it is hard to believe, frankly." Perhaps Snowe went into more substantive detail -- explaining, for example, what she considers "mainstream" -- but I haven't seen additional reporting. She just seems to think the House bill is some kind of outrageous disaster. It's possible Snowe just doesn't know what's in the House bill, because her assessment is wrong.[4]
The CBO found that the Democrats' bill, however, would cover 36 million more Americans and "reduce the number of nonelderly Americans without coverage to around 18 million over the next decade." Just before the CBO scored the GOP bill, a spokesperson for House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) falsely claimed their alternative " will cover millions more Americans " than the Democrats' bill.[4] Keep in mind that this wasn't some Glenn Beck-organized 9/12 stunt. This was an event staged by the House Republican leadership -- actual elected officials, members of the U.S. government. Other Republican members of Congress were on stage, too: Minority Leader John Boehner (OH), Minority Whip Eric Cantor (VA), Roy Blunt (MO), Jeb Hensarling (TX), Cathy McMorris Rodgers (WA), Michele Bachmann (MN) -- who was a key organizer of the event -- Virginia Foxx (NC), Ginny Brown-Waite (FL), Jean Schmidt (OH), Sue Myrick (NC), and many more. If Republicans wonder why most Americans view them as part of the fringe extreme, they need not look beyond this event. While Democrats were touting the endorsement of AARP, Michele Bachmann and the House leadership were rallying amidst signs like this, shoulder to shoulder with 2,000 teabaggers.[4] "Nothing scares members of Congress more than freedom-loving Americans," Bachmann said. Referring to herself in third person, Bachmann added, "It is not Michele Bachmann's fault" if the activists are angry tomorrow -- "it is Speaker Pelosi's." When has Bachmann scheduled her Capitol Hill soiree? This afternoon -- November 5 -- a date widely known as Guy Fawkes Night. (You know, "Remember, remember, the fifth of November.") Bachmann wants to rally right-wing activists, label them an "insurgency," and encourage them to roam the halls of Congress deliberately "scaring" members of Congress, on the infamous date that marks an attempt to blow up the Houses of Parliament. I know that Americans are historically illiterate, but you'd think somebody in Washington would have said something to Michelle about this in our time of terrorism and heightened security.[4]
Dick Armey sees the existing system and thinks we'd all be better off with less coverage. Lest anyone think this is unique to Armey, the opposite is true. A few years ago, during Bush's pitch in support of health saving accounts, the LA Times ' Peter Gosselin explained, "Most conservatives -- including those in the administration -- believe that the root cause of most problems with the nation's healthcare system is that most Americans are over-insured."[4]
The overall trend has been clear for some time, though it contains what appears to be a paradox. When you ask people how concerned they are, and whether they'd like to see legislation, very solid majorities say yes. If you reframe the question and ask them to choose from a list of problems to solve ' the issue comes out lower on the list.[9] Gore said, however, that Americans accomplished that goal. He said the people who believed in the goal were the young people of that generation." Those of you who raised your hands represent the future of this world you are the greatest asset we have going for us today," Gore said.'' "This is not a political issue, this is the moral issue of the present generation," Gore said. This sentiment drew a loud applause from the crowd.''[7] Dozens of hands were raised, and the audience applauded. Gore said he was 13 years old when he heard President John F. Kennedy say he wanted to land someone on the moon. He said many people thought that was a foolish commitment.[7]
Because the soot is black, it absorbs the sun and speeds up the melting process of glaciers. He said that while he was writing the book, he was sitting in a fast food restaurant with a friend. A woman walked by him and gave him an odd stare two times. Gore said he said hello to the woman, who proceeded to say to him, "Do you know if you dyed your hair black you would look just like Al Gore."[7] In a round of media interviews Thursday, Gore remained resolute. "My former (political) experience taught me that grass-roots support is what will change things," he said, noting the book's ties to the "Repower America" website, which aims to enlist popular support for "clean" energy.[10] The old technologies that are in common usage today, are for the most part incredibly inefficient," Gore said. He added that 65 percent of energy from coal burning plants is used, the rest is wasted.[7] "There is enough heat in much places to generate enormous quantities of energy," Gore said. He added that there are now six publicly traded companies focused on marketing this source of energy.''[7]
"The good news is the glass is more than half full, with most of the public wanting action," Gore said.[10] Gore received a standing ovation. Those with books in the audience are now waiting to have their book signed. Thanks for reading, we hope you found this to be an informative live blog! Good night.''[7] One of the more intriguing aspects of the book is Gore's comparison of the campaign against regulation of greenhouse gas emissions with the campaign run by the tobacco industry to defeat the regulation of tobacco.[5]
According to a blog post ''on Gore's Web site, '''An Inconvenient Truth reached millions of people with the message that the climate crisis is threatening the future of human civilization and that it must and can be solved.[7] Much of the climate advocacy lobby is guilty of the same incapacity." A recent public campaign by the UK Government prompted complaints that its TV ad on climate change was too scary. Have a look and see what you think.[1] In a wide-ranging interview with Washington Wire today, the former vice president talked about the summit, subsidizing companies, oil dependence and climate change, and the recent decision by Apple, Inc[9] ' he's a board member ' to leave the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in protest over the business group's position on climate change legislation.[9] Things have gotten a little nasty in the Senate committee drafting climate change legislation.[3]
Hi I'm Margot O'Neill. Join me each week as I explore the many facets of Climate Change - the personalities, science, lifestyle, business and politics of this mind-boggling challenge for us all.[1]
"As I have continued to meet with citizens across our state over the last three years, as co-chairman of President Obama's Connecticut campaign and on behalf of health care reform, I have been constantly reminded that Connecticut is not living up to its potential and that too many of our families are being left behind," said Lamont. "Like businesses, states thrive with strong executive leadership, and they fall behind with weak leadership. [4] "In the nine years since I left public service, the vast majority of my investments have been in other areas, but I am proud to have invested in renewable energy and efficient energy strategies and, of course, I invest in keeping with my values and and my beliefs. Were I not to do so these same people would criticise me as a hypocrite," he said in an interview.[5]
GORE: If you believe that the reason I have been working on this issue for 30 years is because of greed, you don't know me.[3] According to Gore's research, the outmoded grid costs $US206 billion a year in the U.S. in lost electricity and outages.[5]
"The only missing ingredient is collective will." Essentially, Gore proposes moving ahead with such technologies on a broad front while securing an international agreement that puts a price on the carbon dioxide wafting from smokestacks, and limits the deforestation that adds to greenhouse gases. (The Senate's environment committee, led by Sen. Barbara Boxer, D. -Calif, forwarded just such a "cap-and-trade" bill Thursday, for a vote, despite a boycott by committee Republicans.)[10] Some call it putting your money where your mouth is, others, I guess, call it nefarious. The piece was ominously entitled Gore's Dual Role - Advocate and Investor --as though he were guilty of some sleazy, duplicitous agenda. It repeats the (very) bogus claim that Gore stands to become "the world's first carbon billionaire"--one of the favorite charges of his more radical opponents.[2]
The charge goes in the headline. It goes in the first paragraphs of the story. Then in paragraph 32 it's revealed that the charge is baseless. John Broder wasn't embarrassed to have this appear under his byline. Oh, and to state the obvious: even if it were true, nobody but a professional Gore hater could possibly find anything wrong with someone investing in the very solutions they say are necessary to save the world.[3] Gore spoke clearly about the energy and technology solutions that exist, what it will take to actually implement them, and why it ain't happenin'.[12] Gore also said the electric vehicle fleet is a great way to reduce emissions from energy.''[7]
Our Choice will answer that call.''' It is a full house here in Lisner and the crowd is anxiously awaiting Gore's appearance.'' He came to GW'' in 2007 ''for an environmental conference.[7] Rick Moran at Right Wing Nut House, unloads on what he sees as the increasingly deranged push by right-wing bloggers and others in the far-right media to turn the GOP into a permanent minority status party by purging all but the true believers from its ranks. What is it that possesses certain conservatives to fool themselves so spectacularly into believing that they can create a majority out of a minority? In the case of far right conservatives who think that they can turn their meager numbers into a ruling majority all by themselves, the disconnect from reality would normally call for an intervention - except they reject anything from anybody who doesn't agree with them 100%. Those who reject reality in favor of persecution complexes, wildly exaggerated hyperbole, and a frightening need for vengeance against their imagined "enemies." Psst, Michele, I think he's talking about you.[4]
Gore said we are not using wind resources enough because we do not have the technology to do so. [7] A Pew poll published last week found a sharp decline over the past year in the percentage of Americans who say there is solid evidence that global temperatures are rising.[5] The non-Gore-demented might even find that a perfectly predictable way for a capitalist to respond. As this Daily Kos diary points out, this seems of a piece with the New York Times ' stated desire to be more "tuned-in" to Fox and right-wing talk radio.[4]
SOURCES
1. ABC News - Special Events Blog: The psychology of climate change
2. New York Times' Hit Job on Al Gore Sparks Controversy : TreeHugger
3. Grist on the NYT's "Baseless Hit Job on Al Gore" | Environment | AlterNet
4. PEEK | AlterNet
5. The constant crusader
6. "Should I Trust Al Gore, or My Rock Hard Nipples?" (VIDEO) : TreeHugger
7. Live blogging the Al Gore event at Lisner Auditorium - Newsroom Blog - The GW Hatchet
8. Al Gore on the Colbert Report - Stephen Colbert and Al Gore Video - thedailygreen.com
9. Gore to Obama: Don't Skip Copenhagen - Washington Wire - WSJ
10. Gore's book a toolbox for fixing climate crises - USATODAY.com
11. Al Gore And Stephen Colbert Debate Global Warming Solutions « ecorazzi.com :: the latest in green gossip
12. Gore on the Daily Show: extended dance remix | Grist
GENERATE A MULTI-SOURCE SUMMARY ON ANY SUBJECT
Enter your search query below. WAIT 10-20 sec for the new window to open.
Get more info on Gore's book a toolbox for fixing climate crises by using the iResearch Reporter tool from Power Text Solutions.
 |
|  |
|
