What Al Gore Could Do This Election

I said earlier that there's no point in Al Gore endorsing anyone in the primary. But if he does want to have a salutary effect on the presidential election, I have a proposal for him. More on that in a minute.

It's looking like John McCain has a better than even chance of getting the Republican nomination. He has the distinction of being by far the most sensible Republican candidate on the subject of climate change. It is one of his storied heresies from Republican orthodoxy.

He is drawing fire from the right on the issue, insuring a stream of glowing press (never underestimate the press's love of a maverick, faux or not) and a powerful appeal to independents (one of the reasons he won so big in NH). This makes him a very potent candidate in the general election, if he makes it there.

Inexplicably, green groups seem determined to help McCain as well, actively muddying the differences among the candidates on climate. "The true frontrunner in the 2008 presidential campaign so far is the issue of global warming: all four winning candidates to date support capping greenhouse gas emissions and solving the global warming crisis," said LCV. Representatives of Environmental Defense and NRDC echoed the message. One NGO green said that all four winning candidates have "a position that is certainly far better than the Bush administration" on climate, which is a bit like saying your ankles and your ears are both above your feet.

These groups are effectively trumpeting their own success -- "look how important we made this issue!" -- at great peril to the climate they claim to be protecting. The fact is, McCain would be a much worse president on climate than either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. Those who support strong action on climate would do well to highlight, not elide, that difference.

It's not about partisan attacks. It's about giving voters who care about the issue the information they need to express that concern with their vote. The message that "everybody's great on climate" does the opposite -- it removes all political valence and neutralizes the issue.

That's where Al Gore could come in. He's not particularly well-received in the political realm, be he is viewed as an authority on the subject of climate change. His judgment on which candidate is strongest on climate would carry considerable weight, and might offer countervailing pressure against the forces working to push the issue off the table.

If I were advising Gore, I'd tell him to refrain from endorsing a candidate at all, even in the general. When asked, he should say, "I've had my fill of American electoral politics. I have bigger things on my mind now. What I care about is a serious plan to address the climate crisis. I will make my opinion about the candidates' proposals on that subject well known." The fact is, if he assessed the candidates honestly on climate, McCain would come out looking shabby.

Why is McCain worse than Obama and Clinton on climate? I'll address that in a separate post.

grist.org

Comments

[sheila]

david, i would like to see you and GRIST draw the crucial distinction between GREEN solutions to climate change and WILDERNESS-KILLING "solutions" to climate change, because frankly, that matters as much as coal vs. wind. just because something uses the sun or wind as part of its fuel, that does NOT make it "Green," and if it kills off hundreds of thousands of acres of wilderness, it is an ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTER like the Exxon Valdez, not a palatable solution to global warming.

So far, Sierra Club and NRDC and GRIST are the ones "muddying the water" when it comes to what constitutes a HEALTHY solution which benefits ratepayers, and what is a DEADLY mess which strengthens utility chokeholds, increases energy dependence, and costs ratepayers billions in lost wilderness resources, higher bills and missed opportunities to be the new green energy producers...

Come on, what do you say? are you ready to be part of the solution??

[joebhed]

Is this about what Al should do, or which candidate has the best CC policies.
He should stick with CC advocacy, from where he has a a powerful pulpit to be the global critic of not only US policy proposals, but those of all world leaders.
"Global Climate Change Critic Mr. Al Gore said today that ..... "
While some think there is not a lot of difference in CC policy proposals, there is some substance to be seen.
Simply put, primarily, there are three functions:
the goal-setting function,
the policy choice function, and
the funding function.
What do we need to do?
How do we do it?
Where do we get the money?
For discussion, let's agree that we need the most comprehensive reduction targets, the best case scenario, or whatever.
Then we look at the policy options available - which ones get prioritized and for what reason.
After we see what fixing the problem will cost, we get the money.
Anybody out there can join McCain and Herr Liebermann and just rely on those successful free-market solutions.
The Carbon Allowance Cap And Trade System is their proposal. Let the market decide who pays what for what.
Others support the so-called hybrids that auction off either all or part of the allowances, with a wide gamut from 10 to one-hundred percent.
Hillary and Obama are there.
They still rely on the market to trade those allowances once issued.
Sounds stupid to me.
Why bring the free-market into it?
Once we know the "budget" required from US taxpayers, ratepayers and consumers, set a Carbon Tax level to provide exactly the funding level that will be required.
No matter what the question on CC funding, the answer, my friends, is the Carbon tax.
Let's get on with it.

[jdm58]

Looking forward to your analysis on the candidates vision of Global Warming action. So far, they all seem to fall short of any real "change" policy that gives more than lip service to the crisis, and no real solutions are offered. Even reading their prepared statements on the League of Conservation Voters website, one would think that they believe this is an issue that will go away if ignored long enough, or will be solved by voluntary corporate investment, and no public support.

[Road]

That's crazy. After Al Gore won the 2000 election, he retired from the contest in the name of what appeared to be unity at the time. His concession was perhaps the most graceful in the history of American politics.

Please document how he "sulked and stirred up his minions" to stoke the fames of "hatred."

You're describing former Governor Bush.

[RobtBrock]

Fairfloss is a good loser.

[TellingTruth2Kooks]

It seems to me that AL GORE needs to just stop his Non-Presidential Campaign and run for the Office right out in the Open!

Especially since the Obama/Clinton campaigns are destroying the Democratic Party, and they won't be happy until it is completely splintered along Racial, Gender, Class and Ideological Lines.

Pretty soon instead of an Unified Democratic Party, it will dissolved into it's subsets:

The Black American Party,
The Hispanic Party,
The Feminists Party,
The Liberal Party,
The Class Party,
The Nationalist Party,
The Socialist Party,
The Progressive Party,
The Marxist Party,
The Stalinist Party,
The Communist Party,
The Anarchist Party,
The Green Party,
The NAMBLA Party,
The Gay Men Party,
The Lesbian Party,

And the rest of the Fringe groups that believe that they have a Lock on the truth on how to run everyone elses lives!

AL GORE is the Only man who can bring all of these Groups together and make them all goosestep along with the Democratic Platform, and lead them to Victory over those Horrible Conservatives!!!

[Fairfloss]

What Al Gore could do, he should have done in 2000, when he realized he had lost to George W. Bush. He should have shook Bush's hand and showed a little civilized, good old American sportsmanship. Instead, he sulked and stirred up his minions and the flames of hatred grew and spread. After all, hate is addictive.