Al Gore - Hardly Any Attention To Climate Issues In Presidential Race

[hatrack]

Monterey, California - Former US vice president and renowned climate change fighter Al Gore says that the global warming crisis is getting short shrift in this year's presidential race.

Gore used the stage at a prestigious Technology, Entertainment and Design conference in Monterey, California, to call for activism to push climate change to the top of the candidates' political agendas.

"As important as it is to change the light bulbs, it is more important to change the laws," Gore told an elite gathering of scientists, celebrities, entrepreneurs, and Internet superstars.

EDIT

Gore took solace in the fact that leading Democratic contenders Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama along with the Republican Party's all-but-certain nominee John McCain are promising "leadership" regarding climate change. Global warming has been given minimal attention in presidential debates, which have ironically been sponsored by "something with an Orwellian label" of Clean Coal, Gore observed.

EDIT

http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=143&art_id=nw20080302155314558C649833

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. Two things I'd say:

1) Al, you should've run yourself. This wouldn't be a problem if you were in the race, where you should be!
2) It's only the primaries, and the differences between the Democrats involved aren't stark enough for this to be a focus. I'd say this is going to be a lot larger once the general election comes around.

[IowaGirl]

3. Boy, I wish Al were running, my life....

would be so much easier. I live in a house "divided." My husband is for Obama and I'm for Hillary. We would have been united on Al. Can we just write him in? :bounce:

[OKIsItJustMe]

8. Sure, you can write Al Gore in.

Of course, you'd just be throwing both your votes away.

I was pulling for Al Gore back in 1992. I wish he was on the ballot this year. However, given the eventual choice between John McCain and either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, I don't think I'll have any trouble voting in the general election.

[mtnester]

2. Right now, for just a little while, I will say

that there was a way to change that, he knows it, would not go there, and so for now, I am having an "I am pissed at Al" hissy fit.

I will of course get over it, but I claim the right to say "what if" albeit for about one more day I am thinking.

Sigh, I love Al, just not today.

[XemaSab]

4. Funny, I've thought just the opposite

Seems to me like all the candidates are ofering is meaningless crap about climate change in lieu of a comprehensive environmental policy.

Which is more important? Sustainable forests with a healthy fire regime today, or a 2% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050?

I'd argue without a healthy ecosystem, we'll be battered FAR worse by the inevitable climate change a-coming.

[speedbird]

5. pushing a lower standard of living ....

on the poor and middle class
is going to be a hard sell...

on certain demographics

[cloudythescribbler]

6. Gore should INSIST Global Warming be a focus of the GE debates; also, he like liberals generally ...

UNDERSTATE what needs to be done about global warming MASSIVELY. The talk in the Democratic Party mainstream (Gore, Pelosi, etc) is of an 80% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050 in the US. This is only a half-measure, an issue obscured by the focus on refuting the global-warming deniers' "hard-cop" position.

But Jim Hansen, one of the LEADING climatologists in the world, has recently noted that we have ALREADY PASSED the point of no return in the melting of Arctic Sea ice in summer, with catastrophic implications and impact (as ice reflects heat otherwise absorbed).
John Lovelock, a bit less credible a source but still a major scientist, believes it's too LATE to address global warming (but since the issue is a matter of degree, it only tells us that we have to do MUCH more than is presently being considered, to at least minimize the harm by maximizing the response.)

Gore and other 'mild reform' minded figures are lulling the liberal and progressive public into a false sense of security.

What is needed is GLOBAL NET NEGATIVE GHG (Greenhouse Gas Emissions) and FAR SOONER than the 2030 goal for 'climate net neutrality' (ie, net zero emissions) that Norway has set for itself, going well beyond the national goals liberals and "progressives" advocate in the US. But even that is not enough -- we will need NET NEGATIVE ghg emissions well before 2030, and to keep it net negative for a while until we return to atmospheric equilibrium levels ALREADY PASSED TODAY.

[phantom power]

7. Why, is anybody asking for Gore's opinion on debate format?