iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Al Gore's New Climate Campaign Faces Uphill Battle



First Posted: 09/15/11 12:40 PM ET Updated: 11/15/11 05:12 AM ET

Al Gore has his work cut out for him -- and a recent Gallup Poll hints at why.

For nearly 30 years, when asked by Gallup to prioritize, Americans put the environment ahead of the economy. The widest spread came in the early 1990s, when some 71 percent of respondents favored the environment, even at the risk of curbing economic growth, while 20 percent thought the economy should come first, even if it meant the environment would suffer.

That all changed, perhaps not surprisingly, with the steep economic downturn of 2008, when the majority of respondents, for the first time, began saying that the economy was more important. But the telling tidbit is this: In the aftermath of the Gulf oil spill last year, the sentiment flipped again.

"Gallup found Americans returning, rather dramatically but only temporarily, to a pro-environment position last May, shortly after the spill occurred," the polling organization reported.

How quickly we forget.

Today, economic interests are back on top -- and by the widest margin recorded since Gallup began asking the question in 1984. "Over the past decade," the pollsters concluded, "Americans have dramatically re-evaluated their priorities when considering the trade-offs of economic growth and environmental protection."

Of course, advocates for clean energy development, or programs designed to upgrade and improve the efficiency of the nation's building stock, would argue that these need not be trade-offs at all. A study published by the Brookings Institution in July, for example, found that the clean economy, defined as the "low-carbon and environmental goods and services super-sector," already employs some 2.7 million workers -- more than the fossil fuel industry.

It also found that, while the clean economy grew more slowly overall than the national economy over the last 7 years, sub-segments like clean-tech "produced explosive job gains" and that the clean economy "outperformed the nation during the recession."

And yet, even with the arrival this week of the federal government's long-awaited, repeatedly delayed report on the causes of last year's disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico -- which lays much of the blame on BP's reckless shortcutting and relentless violation of federal regulations governing offshore drilling -- advocates for sensible climate policy, environmental stewardship and clean energy are struggling to be heard.

The louder voices these days belong to Republicans in Congress and on the campaign trail, who appear to have found unanimity in identifying the Environmental Protection Agency as the source of the economy's woes. Many of them have also come to the conclusion, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that climate change is still a matter of widespread debate among the planet's preeminent scientists.

They are drowning out the voices of the more than 1,000 Americans -- and the thousands more who support them -- who offered themselves up for arrest in late August and early September in protest of an oil pipeline that would tap Canada's tarry bitumen deposits. The activist Bill McKibben has called these tar sands "the continent’s biggest carbon bomb."

And there is little question that a mushrooming scandal involving the Obama administration's apparent recklessness in providing half a billion dollars in taxpayer financing to a solar technology company that some of its own budget advisors worried was a bad bet will provide ammunition for clean-energy detractors and climate skeptics -- and help to further silence clean-energy advocates.

Such is the atmosphere into which former Vice President Al Gore launches his latest effort to win hearts and minds -- a 24-hour call to climate action.

Can it cut through the endless bickering and debate that now dominates -- and ultimately paralyzes -- America's political discourse on matters of energy, climate, the environment and jobs? Hard to say. Not everyone has been a fan of Gore's approach to these issues, suggesting that he has been too bookish or increasingly, too shrill.

But as Gore himself said in an interview with The Huffington Post ahead of his new campaign, fighting for a reasonable transition away from fossil fuels and toward cleaner technologies that won't contribute to global warming -- and the runaway destruction of whole ecosystems that comes with it -- ought not be a solo act, but a symphony.

"If I thought it would help to stand on my head and do it in rhyme, I would do my best to pull that off," Gore said, "and I'm certainly the first to acknowledge that I could be more effective in delivering a message. But the fact that people don't like a message often leads to them focusing on and criticizing the person delivering the message."

He also said he remained optimistic that while political forces continue to generate dissonance on Capitol Hill, ordinary citizens who take a longer, more sustainable view of both the economy and the environment will ultimately prevail.

"The greatest opportunity for change lies in the hearts of those who have rejected the science but who are right now asking themselves a question," Gore said. "Have they been fooled by the oil companies and the coal companies? Have they been taken for a ride by the large polluters who have been putting out misinformation?

"When enough people ask themselves that question and open their minds and hearts to a fair consideration of what the reality is," he added, "then the change will take place."

That remains to be seen.

WATCH: The full HuffPost Green interview with former Vice President Al Gore, founder of the Climate Reality Project:




[Video by HuffPost's Adam Kaufman and Hunter Stuart]
FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

Al Gore has his work cut out for him -- and a recent Gallup Poll hints at why. For nearly 30 years, when asked by Gallup to prioritize, Americans put the environment ahead ...
Al Gore has his work cut out for him -- and a recent Gallup Poll hints at why. For nearly 30 years, when asked by Gallup to prioritize, Americans put the environment ahead ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 2,603
  • 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 »  (44 total)
little old lady
United citizens vs Citizens United
03:13 PM on 10/24/2011
No no, this is wrong. The tide is turning and the climate disbelievers are abandoning ship. It will take awhile, especially for the corporations funding the disbelievers and those blindly swallowing their line. More and more people can see climate change actually happening, more and more scientists and disbelievers are seeing the truth. Stick around and watch.
This American
An end to all this nonsense
01:30 AM on 09/23/2011
It seems that the number of people who actually watched this is less than the number that tune in for the two AM rerun of "leave it to Beaver" on the local CBS affiliate in Fargo N.D.
photo
DocSkull
My questions aren't rhetorical.
07:53 AM on 09/23/2011
What was the point of your comment?
11:02 AM on 09/23/2011
I understood his point without even having to ask.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
NewportMac
08:26 PM on 09/20/2011
Good Article Tom,
FYI, the Ustream stats don't support the claim of 8.6M views of Al's 24 Hours program.

See if you can get the Climate Reality Project to confirm the stats for those who "watched" even 1 Ustream segment. Looks like most skipped the event and they're spinning numbers but I could be wrong.

Ustream Stats: http://www.ustream.tv/user/climatereality/info-stats
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
NewportMac
08:54 PM on 09/20/2011
Note: If you run the Ustream numbers, 484,371 unique views related to 532,843 total views of the Ustream sessions. This means only 484,371 people actually took the time to view a single session and, of the group that did, only 48,472 bothered to view more than once.

If we look generally at the Total viewer hours for all shows:
Unique views = 48.6 minutes / view

If we ascribe a liberal 17,000 estimate of dedicated viewers and ascribe 8 hours of viewing to each, the average viewer spent 32.34 min on site.

It looks like they counted Tweets as views or the Ustream numbers aren't accurate.

Sample Tweets: http://twitter.com/#!/search/ClimateRealityProject
Youtube Channel: http://www.youtube.com/climatereality
Facebook site: http://www.facebook.com/climatereality
Twitter site: http://twitter.com/#!/ClimateReality

I don’t get the Millions claim unless UStream feeds to Facebook don’t properly reflect total Facebook views but, if its the case, how did they arrive at the Millions Watched figure?
Dogmudgeon
Saepe in Errore, Nunquam in Dubito
04:31 AM on 11/08/2011
How is Ustream even relevant to this? It's 2 million casual viewers, most of them watching Japanese-language TV program re-broadcasts.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dixdarlin
07:25 PM on 09/20/2011
Why would any intelligent human doubt Al Gore and 97% of the world's Scientist?
He is trying to save the planet, and You.
If he is wrong, then you have cleaned up your air, water and environment. If he is right, you are dead!
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
06:24 PM on 09/19/2011
AGW "Skeptics": God Will Protect Us From Global Warming

Prominent global warming "skeptics" including Roy Spencer, Ross McKitrick (purported "hockey stick" slayer) and Joseph D'Aleo (Icecap blog) preach that per the Bible God will protect us from global warming, along with other Christian fundamentalist signatories of the Cornwall Alliance's "Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming":

http://www.cornwallalliance.org/blog/item/prominent-signers-of-an-evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/

Roy Spencer is moreover on the Cornwall Alliance's Board of Advisers.

http://www.cornwallalliance.org/about/board-of-advisors/

More from the Cornwall Alliance on their belief that per Biblical prophesy God will protect us from global warming:

-----------------------
The world is in the grip of an idea: that burning fossil fuels... is causing global warming that will be so dangerous that we must stop it by reducing our use...

We believe that idea... fails the tests of theology... with a worldview of the Earth and its climate system contrary to that taught in the Bible...
 
God’s wisdom, power, and faithfulness justify confidence that Earth’s ecosystems are robust and will, by God’s providence, accomplish the purposes He set for them.
------------------------
http://www.cornwallalliance.org/docs/a-renewed-call-to-truth-prudence-and-protection-of-the-poor.pdf

Kirk Powers: "ggggeeeshh Global Warming: A Religion of Anti-Science"

Science denier irony is eternal.
04:31 PM on 09/21/2011
In reading this, it appears that there are some people who need to take a few classes about biology.

When people tell me as their response to difficult questions such as those related to climate change, "God will take care of us," my response is "Yes, but you won't like the method." If, indeed, God gave us brains, we should actually use them.
photo
BluePhantom2
The Blacksmith & the Artist reflected in their art
11:52 AM on 09/18/2011
Amazing! I just got the number off of "Climate Depot" 8.5 million hits in 24 hours. Thats everybody in SF and Berkley hitting the site about 6 times each over 24 hours, like I said before "FAIL".
little old lady
United citizens vs Citizens United
03:16 PM on 10/24/2011
baloney award goes to those "statistics"
photo
BluePhantom2
The Blacksmith & the Artist reflected in their art
11:04 AM on 09/18/2011
What no big follow-up on the number of people who visited? How about some info on the Gov's that have volunteered for Big Al's circular economic firing squad? This is global governance 101 and in our current economic state even "THE CHOSEN ONE" can't sneak in more money or legislation to forward Big Al's agenda. Can't wait to see how the UN gets funded next year, should be fun with the PLO and green madness.
12:04 AM on 09/18/2011
Can't he change hearts and minds with the internet he invented?
photo
DocSkull
My questions aren't rhetorical.
12:37 AM on 09/18/2011
"Can't he change hearts and minds with the internet he invented?"

Did you send that message by semaphore?
12:19 PM on 09/18/2011
Telegraph.
photo
qwert1234
haha, charade you are
01:31 PM on 09/18/2011
regarding that internet thing

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Sock No 4
Comfy sock
03:12 PM on 09/18/2011
Right. He didn't invent it. He created it. Big difference. LOL
10:42 PM on 09/17/2011
I agree Al, I will stand on your head if it helps.Although a bit of vigorous jumping might be more effective in changing the climate.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Sock No 4
Comfy sock
10:22 PM on 09/17/2011
"Such is the atmosphere into which former Vice President Al Gore launches his latest effort to win hearts and minds ...."

What is the chance that Al Gore can change any hearts or any minds? He is so polarizing. People take their negative feelings about him and form negative feelings about the whole Global Warming issue.

If Al Gore wanted hearts and minds changed he would realize that he is an obstacle and take his brilliant mind and come up with another solution which does not involve his face in our viewing area.
photo
DocSkull
My questions aren't rhetorical.
12:41 AM on 09/18/2011
"People take their negative feelings about him...."

He's a noble laureate, award winning documentarian, two term vice president, and won the popular vote in his presidential bid. I think you overestimate how much people don't like him.

Do you have any reasons that involve science?
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Sock No 4
Comfy sock
11:23 AM on 09/18/2011
Looks like I can't reply to you. Both of my attempts were removed immediately.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Sock No 4
Comfy sock
11:24 AM on 09/18/2011
LOL - I can post to say I cannot post. But my meaningful post which addressed yours didn't make it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
vetxcl
01:47 PM on 09/17/2011
Well, everyone needs a hobby and Mr. Gore's seems noble enough. Still, there is something about his push that reminds me of Sister Sarah. Could it be the speaking fees? (Apawlingese = speechifyng.) Both also seem to have the lust for public attention.
photo
DocSkull
My questions aren't rhetorical.
12:44 AM on 09/18/2011
"Could it be the speaking fees?"

We've heard that argument many times. Screwing up the world deserves profit, but trying to fix it has to be done for free.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kwaut lizard
Reductio ad Absurdum
06:09 PM on 09/18/2011
He's supposed to be a bum on a street corner, cuz it will give him so much more street cred. We have an ex VP being lambasted for his parents and grandparents for their income sources half a century ago, for flying in airplanes when he was making decisions that influenced major world affairs, who lives in a house bigger than the average American, .... by this logic, he is supposed to be riding a bicycle to work, sewing his own clothes, and move into a cave.

These people cannot separate the message from the messenger and their grasp of the situation is that we will have to all wear animal furs and move back into caves. It is futile arguing with a 12 year old indignant erudite intransigent mentality that will provide an argument based on hearsay, innuendo, fallacious rumors.
photo
Republitarian
Take your stinking paws off of my money!
11:59 PM on 09/16/2011
Not sure who looks more Asian with his face-lift, Gore or Biden.
09:40 AM on 09/17/2011
What does that have to do with anything? I'll bet some of your best friends are Asian.
03:59 PM on 09/16/2011
I've been teaching about global warming for most of the more than 55 years I've been a teacher. So, this isn't something new or that started with Al Gore. It's troubling that because Gore is a politician that he isn't accepted by those who oppose his politics. Actually, human over-population is the biggest problem, especially as associated with developed countries such as ours that use the bulk of natural resources. We don't have to run out of renewable resources, but if they are living things, we have to leave enough to reproduce and replace what we take. So far, we're not willing to do that.
Regarding global warming, the factors that cause it relate to what we do to make money. It's pretty obvious that making money is far, far more important than having a livable environment. The money needs are immediate, while the environmental needs can be put off--again--and again.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Blaine Knapp
Semper Fidelis
05:56 PM on 09/16/2011
In the 1970's the consensus was on global cooling, not warming. You should agree that consensus is a political term, not a scientific term. The world is not over populated, we are declining in the west. China and Russia have a population crisis over the horizon because of their central planning in regards to child birth. Taxing part of the life cycle is a fiendishly brilliant idea pushed by David Rockefeller, BP, and their legates. Al Gore has a lot to gain through the deindustrialization of America because he and Maurice Strong have extensive investments in China's emergence.

University of East Anglia and that fellow from Penn State have done a lot to seal the fate of the climate changers. No one likes to be lied to.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
silverwolf13
I know that I do not know.
06:13 PM on 09/16/2011
Most of the major deniers have been misrepresenting the science ever they started shilling for the tobacco companies, telling us that smoking wasn't unhealthy; then, would you believe that second-hand smoke isn't unhealthy. Then they moved on to denying climate change, largely because the PR firm running the denial campaign figured that they'd lose credibility if the shilled only for the tobacco companies.

Do you like that kind of lying?
photo
qwert1234
haha, charade you are
06:17 PM on 09/16/2011
there was never a consensus on global cooling. even in the 70s the majority were predicting global warming.
04:08 PM on 09/23/2011
More "Over Population" propoganda.
01:43 PM on 09/16/2011
I don't think that the main problem is the predictable fossil fuel industry misinformation campaign, but rather the fact that most media are corporate and thus easily controlled by the rape-and-pillage-the-planet-for-profit crowd.

Corporate media don't serve humanity.
03:11 PM on 09/16/2011
No media serves humanity, or ever has. If you think that, you have no understanding of the history of journalism.
04:03 PM on 09/16/2011
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. (:

You position is ridiculous. There are plenty of vibrant alternative media that help to get the truth out.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Cindy M Brito
Veritas
01:40 PM on 09/16/2011
It never ceases to amaze me that certain comments are deleted that seem ok to me in content. Then other times posters have directly called me names or have been abusive and nothing is done about it even after I have flagged them.I don't know what was wrong with a poster earlier saying that we need to keep the Earth clean no matter what side of the climate debate they are on. Maybe this won't be printed either. Can someone please explain to me what is wrong with the above statement? If it makes sense, I will stand corrected.
01:57 PM on 09/16/2011
"Our relationship to the earth is just as important in the present as it is in the future. Whether you believe that climate change is caused by man or natural events, should not prevent you from doing everything possible to prevent pollution . Green initiatives are necessary no matter what side of the fence you are on or how you feel about Al Gore." 

Thank you , Cindy. I will repost and see what happens. I am not sure why this post was removed. I liked your response very much and hope in can be reposted.
little old lady
United citizens vs Citizens United
12:56 AM on 09/17/2011
I like what Cindy said, also. Climate change is happening, we are not prepared, we continue to mistreat the only home we have...wake up folks! And, by the way, that's what Al Gore is trying to do.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:26 PM on 09/16/2011
The moderators on HuffPo (NOT interns from the Seven Sisters, as I have accused them in the past) are recent English and J-School graduates, and they still haven't been able to distinguish between ad hominem name-calling and strong expression of opinion. They often allow the former (from the new Appalachia On Line posters) and cut the latter--with very little rhyme or reason.

The only answer IMO, is to complain directly to Arianna. That really cranks them up.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Cindy M Brito
Veritas
01:18 AM on 09/17/2011
Whoooo yeah going directly to Arianna Huffington would really stir things up. Thanks for that. I have had people ask me if I have been drinking the kool aid and do I have blinders on, or my personal favorite, they ask if I am a tree hugger. I never get personal, I like a debate that introduces facts by way of links, not attacks on what I believe.