http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hTTPP_...q2-aCf76Eed_sAg

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hTTPP_...q2-aCf76Eed_sAg

Climate crisis getting short shrift in US president race: Gore

19 hours ago

MONTEREY, California (AFP) — Former US vice president and renowned climate change fighter Al Gore said Saturday 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.

"We have to become incredibly active as citizens in our democracy. In order to solve the climate crisis we have to solve the democracy crisis, and we have one."

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.

A famous book by science fiction author George Orwell depicts a society in which government leaders control citizens with obtuse or oxymoronic vocabulary, stripping people of words for critical thoughts.

"We have to speak up," Gore said. "We have sclerosis in our democracy. Go on the Internet, connect with people."

The Alliance for Climate Protection established in California by Gore will launch a national campaign to increase the heat on candidates regarding how they will fight global warming, according to Gore.

Gore said aspiring presidents should guarantee actions including taxes on carbon dioxide and a moratorium on coal-fueled power plants that don't recapture atmosphere-altering gas.

The new president should immediately sign the Kyoto protocol to fight climate change, ending this country's shameful distinction of being the only hold-out, according to Gore.

"We have had any talk on that scale, but I think we will by November," Gore said of focusing candidates on climate change.

Gore called for a "global Marshall plan" to combat global warming, which is a culprit in poverty, disease, drought and other societal ills.

"There is a bridge between the climate crisis and the crisis of extreme poverty in the world," Gore said.

"One aspect of economic growth is a pattern of consumption that morphed into overconsumption," Gore said while linking the excesses of the rich to the woes of the poor.

"The solution to the climate crisis is going to involve less overconsumption. But, political will needs to be mobilized before we can mobilize resources."

Gore likened efforts to extract oil from tar sand or shale to a junkie injecting drugs in veins between his toes after those in his arms and legs collapse from abuse.

"We have to stop this, and the truth is we can," Gore said. "We have the technology. If we just had one week's worth of what we spend on the Iraq war we could be well on our way to solving this challenge."

I feel that Gore is gettng ready to make his move. He told the candidates that Global Warming was a must on the agenda, and they haven't listened because they are too busy bickering back and forth. We do not need Obama or Hillary, because we need someone with a little more world appeal, and I feel that these candidates have lost what they need to be president.

Yes, perhaps the sleeping giant is awakening? I like his reference to the Orwellian nature of the "Clean Coal" debate sponsors :clap:

You have no idea what you are talking about. We do give a damn, and that is why we need a real leader.

The obnoxious post you responded to has been deleted.

Sadly, I have to disagree that Gore's getting ready to make his move. I simply don't see any way that he can get in at this point in the race, even at a deadlocked convention. But even more sad is the fact that I believe Gore seriously miscalculated how much attention the candidates and the American people were going to give to global warming without him being out there reminding us all the time that this needs to be a priority. He can run all the TV ads he wants, and he may even get the two nominees to give lip service to the problem, but they will never make it the priority that Gore would have.

I'm afraid he needed to run and take the the office the people of this country elected him to in 2000. :angry:

Yes EM, there might be some miscalculation. Yet I still hope Gore somehow knows what he's doing. In terms of the Democratic nomination, he would have the power of being a key superdelegate to influence the candidates, since the superdelegates could sway the balance of the nomination. And what will the crowds do when Gore gets up to speak at the convention??

Yes, I'll grant your wish and delete most of this post. Please be respectful to our members. :spikey:

If you didn't care, you wouldn't be posting your nasty little remarks. You have no clue as to what we are about. As a lot of us here have said, the best way to get legislation on global warming passed is to have Gore as President. He truly cares about our world and many here have put in long hours to try to make that happen.

Your post was deleted because it was obviously disrespectful. Do you allow people to come to your "house" and be disrespectful??

You have no idea who we really are and what we're really doing.

YOU should be ashamed.

I'm certain that I've done more to get Gore's message out than you'll ever do. :angry:

So, what exactly HAVE you done, earthcomesfirst? :?:

Getting back on track with the topic and a viewpoint:

Obama & Clinton: Who's More Likely to Confront Global Warming?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-loeb/ob...mo_b_89406.html


....."If we ignore global warming much longer, we'll face a world of perpetual disaster, so there's no larger question for presidential candidates than who is more likely to tackle it successfully. Although Obama's and Clinton's positions are similar, he seems far more likely to. The key difference is their ability to mobilize a grassroots base to demand that the necessary changes get passed."

......

"As an entrenched symbol of loathing to the political right (in a recent Mike Huckabee speech, his lines attacking Hillary got more applause than anything else he said), and whom down-ticket Democrats are terrified of seeing head the ticket in conservative states, she's unlikely to build the overwhelming majority we need to help shift our economy's entire energy base."

......

"If I look at both Obama's record and his campaign, I see someone who understands the critical role of citizen movements and works to build them as a force capable of creating major change. That's what we've needed to address the major challenges of the past. It's what we'll need to address this ultimate crisis we've created through the combination of technological inventiveness and short-focus blindness. The Clintons may have spoken out against the Vietnam War when they were young, but they've been hedging their bets and distancing themselves from citizen movements ever since. We need a movement-building approach for global climate change -- and for all the other crises America's next president will inherit from Bush's disastrous reign."




More to the article, of course. What I took away from this was the observation that Obama knows how to mobilize, and empower, grass roots action- necessary for any change including tackling the climate.

I hadn't thought about the down-ticket issue if HRC were the candidate, but I can see the point. Since Democrats need every candidate they can get into office, that should be a critical issue.