More

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

Al Gore Obama Climate Change

First Posted: 06/22/11 09:05 AM ET Updated: 08/22/11 06:12 AM ET

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."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
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 ...
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 ...
Filed by Alexander Belenky  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 8,598
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (156 total)
  1 of 19  
COMMUNITY PUNDITS
photo
ReedYoung 02:15 PM on 06/23/2011
No, as a matter of fact, Al Gore does not blast President Obama in Rolling Stone!

I am sure you have heard about Al Gore’s recent article in Rolling Stone. The corporate media coverage of Gore’s article perfectly illustrates how the left is being  Read More...

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/climate-of-denial-20110622?page=1

So, why do you suppose that the Associated Press wants to tell you that Al Gore did "blast" President Obama?Do you think it might have something to do with AP's advertisers?
(h/t Thom Hartmann)
10:12 AM on 07/21/2011
Guess Al didn't get the memo. The Global Warming HOAX has been totally, completely and thouroughly DEBUNKED and exposed for the fraud it is. Check this out: http://www.climatedepot.com/

Over 1,000 scientist and tons of facts and information enough to make Al Gore hang his head in shame for the fraud he has perpitratated on the American people and the world. Guess he'll be needing to find another source of income!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SFTor
09:04 PM on 07/15/2011
What do you expect? Al Gore sits on both sides of the table. His double-dealing is an affront to environmentalists everywhere. At least it should be.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ReedYoung
global mean land-ocean temperature 1880 to present
10:36 AM on 07/07/2011
The form of this AP hack piece really just proves Mr. Gore right and underscores his point about the pitiful corporate media, in a way that should be humiliating to every AP writer.

All that might be completely understandable and make perfect sense in a world where the climate crisis wasn't "real." Those of us who support and admire President Obama understand how difficult the politics of this issue are in the context of the massive opposition to doing anything at all — or even to recognizing that there is a crisis. And assuming that the Republicans come to their senses and avoid nominating a clown, his re-election is likely to involve a hard-fought battle with high stakes for the country. All of his supporters understand that it would be self-defeating to weaken Obama and heighten the risk of another step backward. Even writing an article like this one carries risks; opponents of the president will excerpt the criticism and strip it of context.

But in this case, the President has reality on his side. The scientific consensus is far stronger today than at any time in the past. Here is the truth: The Earth is round; Saddam Hussein did not attack us on 9/11; Elvis is dead; Obama was born in the United States; and the climate crisis is real. It is time to act.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/climate-of-denial-20110622?page=6

See, AP? You're such crap, Al knew you were going to write this bs before you did!
10:35 PM on 06/29/2011
Well, we all know that Al Gore is well versed in environmental issues. Maybe he can offer the President, Congress & Senate a little help in getting the economy and jobs back in gear.
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ReedYoung
global mean land-ocean temperature 1880 to present
03:12 PM on 06/29/2011
Why are some scientists "skeptical" of climate change?

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/CASE-STUDY-Dr-Willie-Soon-a-Career-Fueled-by-Big-Oil-and-Coal/

Because Exxon, Koch and coal companies paid them $1,000,000 to deny the facts of climate change.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ReedYoung
global mean land-ocean temperature 1880 to present
03:15 PM on 06/29/2011
Key findings:$1 Million in corporate funding: The FOIA response from the Smithsonian reveals that more than half (over $1 million) of Willie Soon’s total funding since 2001 has come from the oil and electric utility industry (coal). Since 2002, every new grant he has received has been from either oil or coal interests.Polar bear junk science funding revealed: While Dr. Soon revealed in a 2007 non-peer reviewed Ecological Complexity article on polar bears and Arctic ice that his research was funded by ExxonMobil, the American Petroleum Institute and the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, neither the corporate funders or Dr. Soon have ever acknowledged the extent, dollar figures or timing of those grants.More Koch Funding: The FOIA response from Smithsonian uncovered an additional grant in 2010 from the Charles G. Koch Foundation of $65,000.Southern Company dirty coal funding: The Smithsonian documents also revealed two previously unknown grants totaling $230,000 from the Southern Company, one of the largest coal burning electric utilities in the United States and in world.Additional corporate funders: Other papers written by Dr. Soon and reviewed by Greenpeace researchers show that the American Petroleum Institute has been funding Dr. Soon since the mid-1990s, a period when he also acknowledged funding from Mobil, Texaco and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) a research and lobby shop funded by the electric utilities.Attack on IPCC report: Correspondence uncovered in our investigation reveals Dr. Soon coordinating a plan in 2003 to undermine the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Assessment Report (AR4) Working Group 1 report–years before the report was released in 2007.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robco1
10:36 AM on 07/07/2011
This. Is. Gold. Thank you Reed! People need to read this and know the truth about these shills who've traded their credentials for cash.

How can anyone with the intelligence to achieve those credentials also have the lack of moral center required to jeopardize the future of every child on the planet? I will never understand that.
01:43 PM on 06/29/2011
As a supporter of the President and a environmentalist I think former Vice President Gore
was totally correct in calling Mr Obama's record into question on the environment!

The President is said to support technologies such as coal gasification, well there is
no way to burn coal cleanly, so I oppose the President in this area! Mr Obama needs
to put stricter controls on Coal Fired Power Plants, because they emit the majority of
the carbon the US emits into the atmosphere annually.

I support the President but the time to change how much carbon we emit into the
atmosphere is now! Every year it just gets hotter, the storms get more severe and
the Climate Deniers maybe winning today but WE as a country, and as WORLD citizens
will be losing in the long run!

Mankind is changing this planets atmosphere by the burning fossil fuels! US should
have a goal of raising cafe standards to 50 mph regardless of vehicle type and we
should migrate away from Coal Fired Power Plants and use natural gas, nuclear, wind
and other developing technologies to reduce the amount of carbon emitted to slowdown
what is already happening!

To the Climate Deniers, ask the people in Alabama, Joplin Mo, and Minot ND
if the storms they have experienced are like any they've seen in their lifetimes?
if after talking with the people in the effected areas you can still deny this is
happening then you have no business ina position of authority!
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chris 1
12:12 PM on 06/29/2011
The phony consensus polls and how they work;

http://climatequotes.com/2011/02/10/study-claiming-97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-flawed/

Obfuscate "human impact" with co2 to achieve the greatest positive response for the cause. Never discuss "quantity" since there is no consensus.

Why do you think alarmists are losing? Fraud science spin day in day out.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ReedYoung
global mean land-ocean temperature 1880 to present
03:08 PM on 06/29/2011
Yeah, that seems likely.  All the geologists don't know that the human impact on climate is mostly due to carbon dioxide, and Doran and Zimmerman, Oreskes and Anderegg, et al tricked them!

Tell me, what do you suppose that professional scientists thought the phrase "human impact" meant?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chris 1
03:30 PM on 06/29/2011
Why not list it as co2? Because the number would decline.

What does "significant" mean as a percentage of total warming input, why not break it down? Because the reply undermines the fake consensus of course.

It's always the same bait and switch with warmist, generic wishy washy questions then the radical conclusion of those who spin the poll. Not that far off from the IPCC ar4 summary, same technique. co2 is a ghg therefore the world is warming because of co2, we can't prove it with a formula or test it. We can't assign specific numbers or quantify natural variable but think carbon money is going to saved the planet? It's beyond stupid, it's corrupt.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ReedYoung
global mean land-ocean temperature 1880 to present
03:49 PM on 06/29/2011
Would it really?

Why not list it as co2? Because the number would decline.

Then do your own study and prove it.  You can't just claim the numbers are wrong.  At some point, you have to do some work of your own.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ReedYoung
global mean land-ocean temperature 1880 to present
03:39 PM on 06/29/2011
You made a lot of noise, but you failed to answer the question.

Tell me, what do you suppose that professional scientists thought the phrase "human impact" meant?
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ReedYoung
global mean land-ocean temperature 1880 to present
09:58 AM on 06/29/2011
Climate "sceptic" Willie Soon received $1,000,000 from oil companies. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/28/climate-change-sceptic-willie-soon
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chris 1
12:21 PM on 06/29/2011
Climate fraud is linked to sorts of money conflicts of interest; carbon trading, over priced alternative energy schemes linked to government subside, tax incentives for central planners;

http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/skeptics-handbook-ii/the_skeptics_handbook_II-sml.pdf

79 billion spent? Do you think you get paid to admit much of it is based on fraud science?
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ReedYoung
global mean land-ocean temperature 1880 to present
02:48 PM on 06/29/2011
No, it isn't linked.  None of those things have anything to do with the scientific fact that carbon dioxide causes warming.
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Roy Rudy
new Coelacanthforms exist
07:41 AM on 06/29/2011
Al Gore could encourage other countries leaders to become involved in the effects of climate change. A speculative challenge for scientists could be 'How could the present condition of the greenhouse effect be reversed.' Emissions from burning fossil fuel is the greatest contributor to the growing density of pollution in the atmosphere and as Al Gore points out, there has not been enough progress in reducing world wide pollution. Every country that produces pollutants released into the atmosphere or land and water needs to be addressed by those countries as a world wide concern to save our planet for many years to come.
01:51 PM on 06/29/2011
America should LEAD in the effort to reduce the emission
of grenhouse gases into the atmosphere and not let the
Global Climate Change deniers misinformation effect our
countries policies!

While I oppose cap and trade, I do support allowing the EPA
to do their job!...yes other countries also need to step up
and curb their emission but the US should set the standard
and not let those who have made their Billions polluting the
atmosphere decide policy for the rest of us
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Roy Rudy
new Coelacanthforms exist
12:05 AM on 06/30/2011
Yes, I agree with you 100%.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chris 1
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MikeWebster
Always happy.
11:28 PM on 06/28/2011
Of course that in no way changes the fact that the Earth is warming due to AGW.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chris 1
12:27 PM on 06/29/2011
It does tell you the status of cap and tax fraud, going down the drain.

The science discussion is a logical fallacy, the tools we have and histories etc. are parlor games. Like string theory, you can't base a policy of mitigation on anything to date and likely ever.

http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/skeptics-handbook-ii/the_skeptics_handbook_II-sml.pdf

The consensus is a distorted fraud as well;

http://climatequotes.com/2011/02/10/study-claiming-97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-flawed/

Without the idiotic glossy broad stroke questions like; is co2 a ghg? or does man impact climate without listing quantity or specific reasons with proff you have nothing.

agw alarmism is a pile of nothing.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robco1
11:40 AM on 06/29/2011
Scammer, you still haven't addressed the real scam:

The PR firm's memo outlining how they plan to take the astroturf attack on science model they developed for big tobacco and sell it to big oil and coal, then export the model to Europe: http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2024233595-3602.html

The 1998 API memo showing how big oil's trade association sells the very same model to its stakeholders: http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?ID=4466&Method=Full&PageCall=&Title=API%20Plans%20Major%20Disinformation%20Campaign%20%28April%2C%201998%29&Cache=False

The 2002 memo from Frank Luntz showing how he sells it to the GOP: http://www.ewg.org/project/luntz-memo-environment

George Monbiot's discovery of how PR uses online operatives to spread their memes and disrupt honest discourse: http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2010/12/13/reclaim-the-cyber-commons/

And the recent revelation that software bots are being deployed for the same purpose: http://www.desmogblog.com/are-climate-deniers-and-front-groups-polluting-online-conversation-denier-bots

Answer the clear evidence of the fossil fuel industry's PR scam before you spout your astroturf talking points.
photo
Publicola
Facts are stubborn things
03:33 PM on 06/28/2011
The preeminent science journal Nature:

--------------------
Into Ignorance

Nature 471, 265–266

17 March 2011

Vote to overturn an aspect of climate science marks a worrying trend in US Congress.

As Nature went to press, a committee of the US Congress was poised to pass legislation that would overturn a scientific finding on the dangers of global warming. The Republican-sponsored bill is intended to prevent the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating greenhouse-gas emissions, which the agency declared a threat to public welfare in 2009…

That this finding is scientifically sound had no bearing on the decision to push the legislation, and Republicans on the House of Representatives' energy and commerce committee have made clear their disdain for climate science. At a subcommittee hearing on 14 March, anger and distrust were directed at scientists and respected scientific societies. Misinformation was presented as fact, truth was twisted and nobody showed any inclination to listen to scientists, let alone learn from them. It has been an embarrassing display, not just for the Republican Party but also for Congress and the US citizens it represents…

It is hard to escape the conclusion that the US Congress has entered the intellectual wilderness, a sad state of affairs in a country that has led the world in many scientific arenas for so long.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v471/n7338/full/471265b.html
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MikeWebster
Always happy.
08:45 PM on 06/30/2011
Funnily enough, I had a denier having a go at me the other day when I posted from Nature. I think the words were something like:

"You post a link to nature, and you expect to be taken seriously."

Probably followed by a link to Anthony Watts, or JoNova, or Monckton, or some other nonsense.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ReedYoung
global mean land-ocean temperature 1880 to present
03:02 PM on 06/28/2011
How settled is climate science, really?

It's so settled that even teevee weather reporter turned professional climate deniar Anthony Watts had to admit that global warming is a fact!

Using data from Watts' "surface stations" project, several legitimate climate scientists were forced by the facts to conclude that "the 30-year and 115-year trends, and all groups of stations, showed warming trends over those periods" just as the mainstream of professional climate scientists have found all along.  And a review of the careers of co-authors Roger Pielke, Sr. and John Christy will quickly put to rest any fears that they considered warming a foregone conclusion.  Both are long-time climate science deniars.  The facts just cannot be spun to support their denial any more.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chris 1
10:51 PM on 06/28/2011
It's spelled "denier" punk, the word deniar does show up in Holocaust related literature which might reflect your lack of class in the process.
11:29 PM on 06/28/2011
Wow. Just wow. I have seldom read a reply more off-point. And "lack of class"? Who started using the word "punk"?
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ReedYoung
global mean land-ocean temperature 1880 to present
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chris 1
12:40 PM on 06/29/2011
There is nothing in the article to support any claim you make against Watts. Surface temp and station data are a small part of the debate, how clueless are you RY??

Surface temps might have some inportance but are crude measures of one layer of temps. Alarmists make a big deal and those data sets may be corrupt on the face of it. Watts best project is worthwhile but there is nothing to conclude either way at this point. The Earth getting warmer or colder is only aspect of the debate. The real issue is if it is mostly natural or manmade, and putting verified numbers up.

So if someone is skeptical it isn't directly tied to surface station results or history, the best study might just be another example of warmist data cooking.

The usual twisting of what the talking parts are is expected but again debunked.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
B Wood
04:10 PM on 06/29/2011
If surface stations are just one small part of the Denialists argument, then why do people like Watts make such a big deal about it????

Denialists are like the auditor that find a 5 cent rounding error and acts like the whole billion dollar budget is flawed.