Al Gore Blasts Obama On Climate Change For Failing To Take 'Bold Action'

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,304
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#1
Al Gore Blasts Obama On Climate Change For Failing To Take 'Bold Action'

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Former Vice President Al Gore is going where few environmentalists – and fellow Democrats – have gone before: criticizing President Barack Obama's record on global warming.

In a 7,000-word essay for Rolling Stone magazine that will be published Friday, Gore says Obama has failed to stand up for "bold action" on global warming and has made little progress on the problem since the days of Republican President George W. Bush. Bush infuriated environmentalists for resisting mandatory controls on the pollution blamed for climate change, despite overwhelming scientific evidence that the burning of fossil fuels is responsible.

While Gore credits Obama's political appointees with making hundreds of changes that have helped move the country "forward slightly" on the climate issue, and acknowledges Obama has been dealing with many other problems, he says the president "has simply not made the case for action."

"President Obama has never presented to the American people the magnitude of the climate crisis," Gore says. "He has not defended the science against the ongoing withering and dishonest attacks. Nor has he provided a presidential venue for the scientific community ... to bring the reality of the science before the public."

The comments mark a turnaround for the nation's most prominent global warming advocate, whose work on the climate problem has earned him a Nobel Prize and was adapted into an Oscar-winning documentary.

Gore toasted Obama's inauguration with a "green" ball. He helped the White House press the House to pass a global warming bill in 2009 that would have set the first-ever limits on the pollution blamed for global warming. It died in the Democratic-controlled Senate. Gore also advised Obama before the president participated in international climate negotiations in 2009. Obama's last-minute appearance in Copenhagen helped salvage a nonbinding deal to reduce greenhouse gases.

In the essay, Gore calls the Copenhagen result a "rhetorical agreement" that provided cover for the administration's inability to commit to enforceable targets for global warming pollution. Without legislation, Obama couldn't follow through on his promises to cut emissions.

"During the final years of the Bush-Cheney administration, the rest of the world was waiting for a new president who would aggressively tackle the climate crisis, and when it became clear that there would be no real change from the Bush era, the agenda at Copenhagen changed from `How do we complete this historic breakthrough?' to `How can we paper over this embarrassing disappointment?' " Gore writes, referring to the talks, where 193 nations met to draft a new global treaty to reduce greenhouse gases. The 1997 Kyoto Protocol, in which the U.S. never participated and Gore helped to broker, expires in 2012.

Gore declined an Associated Press request for an interview.

Bush pulled out of Kyoto and refused to control heat-trapping pollution even after the Supreme Court said the government had the authority to move forward forcefully on this front and federal scientists determined that increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases posed dangers to human health.

Obama, by contrast, has tightened fuel economy standards to reduce global warming pollution from automobiles, included billions of dollars for climate-friendly projects in the economic stimulus package and started controlling emissions under existing law.

As recently as April, at a Democratic fundraiser in San Francisco, Obama said he was "not finished when it comes to energy."

Mentioning the climate deniers in Congress, Obama said, "Unless we are able to move forward in a serious way on clean energy, we're putting our children and grandchildren at risk."

Regardless of views such as Gore's, environmental voters may see little choice in the 2012 election. Those in the Republican field so far either deny global warming is a man-made problem altogether or say actions to address it would harm the economy. For Obama, the biggest risk is that some environmental voters may not turn out.

In his essay, Gore notes his comments could weaken Obama at a time when he already is under attack from Republicans.

"Even writing an article like this one carries risks," Gore says. "Opponents of the president will excerpt the criticism and strip it of context."

Bowing to political resistance from Republicans and some in his own party, Obama abandoned an effort and a campaign pledge to enact legislation that would put the first-ever limit on greenhouse gases.

In November, after Republicans took control of the House, Obama said in a news conference there were other ways to tackle global warming that wouldn't require new legislation.

"His election was accompanied by intense hope that many things in need of change would change," Gore writes. "Some things have, but others have not. Climate policy, unfortunately, falls into the second category."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/22/al-gore-obama-climate-change-rolling-stone_n_881947.html
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
Mar 23, 2008
51,803
18,538
513
Kingdom of Charis
#3
Tss... Maybe he should take some italics action or underline action or sumptin'. Tss...
 

samurai

Ridiculum Anserini
May 16, 2007
20,710
4,184
568
Chicago
#4
Al Gore & Rolling Stone Magazine. Two of the most unnecessary commodities in the Country.
 

mills

I'll give em a state, a state of unconsciousness
Jan 30, 2005
13,849
638
628
Flea Bottom
#6


wwsssshhhhhhhhhwwwhhsssssshhhooww


It's just getting so sad for this dude.

A few days ago I read an article on CNN about how Nauru is an environmentally fucked little Pacific island. The third bullet point (CNN articles are summarized with four bullet points) was about global warming. But it was just an afterthought and had nothing to do with the issue - that they had mined all the phosphate out and now the place is a wreck. They had to force in "Nauru plans to blah blah the Council on blah blah in the year blah blah" at the end of the article, and bullet-point it. The global warming nuts are starting to remind me of the truthers. Now that this thing they fought so hard to make points for isn't in the spotlight anymore, they can't let it go or it makes them look foolish.
 
Oct 8, 2005
1,797
1
0
Reality
#7
And do you know what that bold action is? Population control.

I was going to start a thread on this but I guess I'll just put it in here.

Gore promoting fewer children to curb pollution

The global warming debate has always been a touchy one for both sides, and when the world’s top global warming activist is talking about the size of population and how that contributes to the choices societies make, it might be worth taking note.

In an appearance Monday in New York City, former Vice President Al Gore, prominently known for his climate change activism, took on the subject of population size and the role of society in controlling it to reduce pollution.

He offered some ideas about what might be done for females in the name of stabilizing population growth. (h/t Chris Horner via wattsupwiththat.com)

“One of the things we could do about it is to change the technologies, to put out less of this pollution, to stabilize the population, and one of the principle ways of doing that is to empower and educate girls and women,” Gore said. “You have to have ubiquitous availability of fertility management so women can choose how many children have, the spacing of the children.

“You have to lift child survival rates so that parents feel comfortable having small families and most important — you have to educate girls and empower women,” he said. “And that’s the most powerful leveraging factor, and when that happens, then the population begins to stabilize and societies begin to make better choices and more balanced choices.”
Of course Al Gore and the rest of the globalists don't practice what they preach and they consume massive amounts of resources and they have more than 1 or 2 children. But its a crazy theory to say these people want to reduce the population by billions even though they are out in the open saying it.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,304
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#8
And do you know what that bold action is? Population control.

I was going to start a thread on this but I guess I'll just put it in here.

Of course Al Gore and the rest of the globalists don't practice what they preach and they consume massive amounts of resources and they have more than 1 or 2 children. But its a crazy theory to say these people want to reduce the population by billions even though they are out in the open saying it.
Why can't you seem to understand that they're talking about third world nations where overpopulation IS an actual problem? Do you really think he's talking about us when he's talking about "lifting child survival rates" and "availability to fertility management?" Last I checked we're over 99% on infant mortality and it's not too hard to find a rubber when you want to.
 
Oct 8, 2005
1,797
1
0
Reality
#9
Why can't you seem to understand that they're talking about third world nations where overpopulation IS an actual problem? Do you really think he's talking about us when he's talking about "lifting child survival rates" and "availability to fertility management?" Last I checked we're over 99% on infant mortality and it's not too hard to find a rubber when you want to.
Yes they are talking about planet earth. Ted Turner another AGW promoter calls for a a global one child policy all the time, except when it concerns him because he has 5 kids and the smart devices they want in all homes that will control when you can use energy will not be in his home.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,304
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#11
Yes they are talking about planet earth. Ted Turner another AGW promoter calls for a a global one child policy all the time, except when it concerns him because he has 5 kids and the smart devices they want in all homes that will control when you can use energy will not be in his home.
Ted Turner's a boob. Do you really think there's a fucking chance in hell this "One Child" plans gets adopted? You're an even bigger idiot than he is.
 
Oct 8, 2005
1,797
1
0
Reality
#12
Ted Turner's a boob. Do you really think there's a fucking chance in hell this "One Child" plans gets adopted? You're an even bigger idiot than he is.
He owns more land than anyone. Ted Turner is a powerful guy and there is more people than him that want to reduce the population. But keep lying to yourself if it makes you feel safe. Ted Turner is a boob and the Chinese don't exist and they never said a global one child policy would fix AGW when the powers that be were meeting at the Copenhagen climate change conference.
 

caniseeyourtaint

Passive agressive douche
Feb 26, 2004
2,465
168
678
Ocean County, NJ
#15
Ted Turner is a powerful guy and there is more people than him that want to reduce the population.
There are alot of people who want stuff. Wanting and getting are two different things. Use a little common sense. Or blow Alex Jones. Either one.
 
Oct 8, 2005
1,797
1
0
Reality
#16
Keep lying to yourself to make you feel like you have a purpose. Again, nobody's trying to limit anyone's ability to have 10 kids in this country, although I could make a strong case in your situation.
You're right, Malthus doesn't exist, Al Gore never said we need to reduce population , Rockefeller never said people live too long, Bill Gates never said we need to reduce the population, Ted Turner never said the population needs to be reduced or we will all become cannibals . Its all a crazy conspiracy theory and none of it ever happened and even if it did happen these are just rich powerful guys that never do what they say they are going to do. Rich powerful men never carry out their plans. They are all just boobs.
 

Psychopath

Plata O Plomo
Dec 28, 2008
17,717
3,352
393
hell
#17
You're right, Malthus doesn't exist, Al Gore never said we need to reduce population , Rockefeller never said people live too long, Bill Gates never said we need to reduce the population, Ted Turner never said the population needs to be reduced or we will all become cannibals . Its all a crazy conspiracy theory and none of it ever happened and even if it did happen these are just rich powerful guys that never do what they say they are going to do. Rich powerful men never carry out their plans. They are all just boobs.
Whatever, Kid Toucher.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,304
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#19
They are all just boobs.
They are. But you're a bigger boob for even worrying about this happening here. All those people have several children each.

They want overpopulation controlled in poor countries where it contributes to a lower quality of life for everyone. Why is that so difficult to understand? And why would they want to lower populations of people in countries like ours where we make them richer either through taxes or buying their goods and services? Your points are so self-contradictory I have to think you're just trolling at this point.
 
Oct 8, 2005
1,797
1
0
Reality
#20
They are. But you're a bigger boob for even worrying about this happening here. All those people have several children each.

They want overpopulation controlled in poor countries where it contributes to a lower quality of life for everyone. Why is that so difficult to understand? And why would they want to lower populations of people in countries like ours where we make them richer either through taxes or buying their goods and services? Your points are so self-contradictory I have to think you're just trolling at this point.
I agree with you 100%. When They say a global one child policy they mean poor countries. When Rockefeller says people are living too long hes talking about people in poor countries that live to 40, hes not talking about Americans that live to 75. Exactly why would they want to lower the population? They need all 6 billion people to consume their resources instead of killing off 5 billion and keeping the population around 1 billion.

I have to think you're just trolling at this point. Its hard to believe anyone can be this naive.
 

mills

I'll give em a state, a state of unconsciousness
Jan 30, 2005
13,849
638
628
Flea Bottom
#21
Why do people give a shit what retards like Kirk believe? And don't say "because it's fascinating". It isn't.