The Al Gore discussion, split from GOP/DEM

[BigSqwert]

Gore warns Congress of impending 'planetary emergency'

POSTED: 11:12 a.m. EDT, March 21, 2007

 

 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Al Gore, a Democratic favorite for the presidency despite pronouncements that he's not running, spoke out on his signature issue Wednesday, warning of a "true planetary emergency" if Congress fails to act on global warming.

 

In a return he described as emotional, Gore testified before House panels that it is not too late to deal with climate change "and we have everything we need to get started." He urged the Democratic-controlled Congress to adopt an immediate freeze on greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.

 

Gore's return to Congress marked the first time he had been in the Capitol since January 2001 when he was the defeated Democratic nominee still presiding over the Senate in his role as vice president.

 

The former vice president, who 20 years ago held the first hearings in Congress on global warming, appeared before a joint hearing by two House committees. Later in the day, he was to testify before a Senate committee that included the current Democratic front-runner for the nomination -- Hillary Rodham Clinton.

 

Several public opinion polls show Gore among the top three in the presidential race, although he has said he has no plans to seek the presidency again. In 2000, he won the popular vote but lost to George W. Bush when the Supreme Court ruled for the Republican in the disputed election.

 

Polls consistently place Gore, the non-candidate, third behind Clinton and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama -- ahead of John Edwards and other declared candidates -- and indicate that much of his support comes from Democrats who would otherwise back the New York senator. (Interactive: View one poll's results)

 

Gore advised lawmakers to cut carbon dioxide and other warming gases 90 percent by 2050 to avert a crisis. Doing that, he said, will require a ban on any new coal-burning power plants -- a major source of industrial carbon dioxide -- that lack state-of-the-art controls to capture the gases.

 

He said he foresees a revolution in small-scale electricity producers for replacing coal, likening the development to what the Internet has done for the exchange of information.

 

"There is a sense of hope in this country that this United States Congress will rise to the occasion and present meaningful solutions to this crisis," he said. "Our world faces a true planetary emergency. I know the phrase sounds shrill, and I know it's a challenge to the moral imagination."

 

Gore gained international recognition with his Oscar-winning documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," as perhaps the leading spokesman on dealing with global warming. (Read more about Gore's Oscar-night appearance)

 

'Welcome back, welcome home'

 

A former congressman and senator from Tennessee, Gore received a friendly reception from Democrats in Congress.

 

"Welcome back, welcome home," said Rep. John Dingell, D-Michigan, chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

 

But several Republicans have said they planned to pose sharp questions. Gore said the climate issue should not be a partisan or political issue.

 

He rejected the contention by opponents of quick action on global warming that the United States should only impose mandatory controls on greenhouse gases if China, India and other rapidly developing nations agree to do the same.

 

"The best way and the only way to get China and India on board is for the U.S. to demonstrate real leadership," Gore said. "As the world's largest economy and the greatest superpower, we are uniquely situated to tackle a problem of this magnitude," he said.

 

Full Article

Edited March 21, 2007 by BigSqwert

[kapkomet]

"The best way and the only way to get China and India on board is for the U.S. to demonstrate real leadership," Gore said. "As the world's largest economy and the greatest superpower, we are uniquely situated to tackle a problem of this magnitude," he said.

 

ABSOLUTELY pure 100% Bull s***.

 

Translation: "America, you're too greedy. The Chinese and Indian economies deserve a chance to catch up. You have to do more ... and the rest of the world MIGHT follow... but it's all up to us Americans. Give us the money, and we'll figure out what to do about it".

[Texsox]

ABSOLUTELY pure 100% Bull s***.

 

Translation: "America, you're too greedy. The Chinese and Indian economies deserve a chance to catch up. You have to do more ... and the rest of the world MIGHT follow... but it's all up to us Americans. Give us the money, and we'll figure out what to do about it".

 

Whaaaat? We're the world's remaining super power. Who else is better situated to influence on a global scale? Canada? France? Ethiopia? Come on CAPKOMET, besides just wanting to disagree with Gore on everything, I can't see how you could realistically disagree on which country is best situated to influence on a global scale. But I can't wait for you to pick one and tell us who?

[kapkomet]

Seeing as how India and China are now darn close to the world's biggest polluters, THEY need to do something about it before we do, or at least at the same time. Why do you think China and India will become the world's leading economies in the next 15 years? It's in part due to the fact that the US has already a lot of environmental restrictions. Are they bad? Not necessarily. Could we do more? Yes. But it's not up to America, as the Goracle says.

Edited March 21, 2007 by kapkomet

[BigSqwert]

ABSOLUTELY pure 100% Bull s***.

 

Translation: "America, you're too greedy. The Chinese and Indian economies deserve a chance to catch up. You have to do more ... and the rest of the world MIGHT follow... but it's all up to us Americans. Give us the money, and we'll figure out what to do about it".

So your solution would be what exactly?

 

He suggests things like cutting carbon dioxide and other warming gases 90 percent by 2050. Something that even the "hypocrite" himself would have to abide by.

Edited March 21, 2007 by BigSqwert

[NorthSideSox72]

Seeing as how India and China are now darn close to the world's biggest polluters, THEY need to do something about it before we do, or at least at the same time. Why do you think China and India will become the world's leading economies in the next 15 years? It's in part due to the fact that the US has already a lot of environmental restrictions. Are they bad? Not necessarily. Could we do more? Yes. But it's not up to America, as the Goracle says.

Um... It was Al Gore, who is an American... talkting to the American Congress. Are you actually going to use the "they won't do it so neither will we" defense here? That's makes about as much sense as MAD did.

 

For US, the ball is in OUR court, first and foremost. Our changes would be huge. Then, once we get our own house in order, we should start working these other countries in any way we can.

[kapkomet]

So your solution would be what exactly?

Why, of course, to blindly follow the Goracle - he MUST be right! Notes to the rules when posting on this site: Soxtalk rule #1523634645754683 - thou shalt not disagree with the Goracle.

 

I just posted about India and China.

 

Again, it's a problem, but Americans shouldn't necessarily be the ones who have to take it up the shorts when fixing a WORLD problem. We're NOT the only "superpower".

[NorthSideSox72]

So your solution would be what exactly?

In case you haven't noticed, the people unhappy with Gore's crusade don't have any solutions to offer. Just complaints.

[BigSqwert]

Why, of course, to blindly follow the Goracle - he MUST be right! Notes to the rules when posting on this site: Soxtalk rule #1523634645754683 - thou shalt not disagree with the Goracle.

 

I just posted about India and China.

 

Again, it's a problem, but Americans shouldn't necessarily be the ones who have to take it up the shorts when fixing a WORLD problem. We're NOT the only "superpower".

So just put the blinders on. Excellent choice.

[kapkomet]

In case you haven't noticed, the people unhappy with Gore's crusade don't have any solutions to offer. Just complaints.

 

That's priceless. Post of the year, in a round about way.

 

 

So just put the blinders on. Excellent choice.

How many times do I have to say that it IS a problem, but it's not totally up to us? I have probably said it about 25 times in this thread. But of course, I'm just ignorant and blind to the Goracle's "facts".

[NorthSideSox72]

How many times do I have to say that it IS a problem, but it's not totally up to us? I have probably said it about 25 times in this thread. But of course, I'm just ignorant and blind to the Goracle's "facts".

You say it IS a problem, then dismiss Gore's specific solutions as 100% B.S. So... are you saying there is a better way?

[BigSqwert]

How many times do I have to say that it IS a problem, but it's not totally up to us? I have probably said it about 25 times in this thread. But of course, I'm just ignorant and blind to the Goracle's "facts".

I love the conservatives. It's America's obligation to go oust Saddam Hussein in the middle east but something that affects the lives of the entire population of the planet should be ignored.

[Texsox]

Gore said. "As the world's largest economy and the greatest superpower, we are uniquely situated to tackle a problem of this magnitude," he said.

 

OK Kap, you called this b.s. So if it isn't the US, who is "uniquely situated to tackle a problem of this magnitude" Simple question, you must be thinking of some country with more influence around the globe than the US. Taiwan? Spain? England? Who should we take a back seat to and follow?

[NorthSideSox72]

I have a challenge for people in this thread. I want someone to give me one good argument why climate change and environmental issues generally should NOT be one of the country's top priorities. Because so far in this thread, the only arguments I've seen against that are...

 

--Al Gore is an idiot (aka kill the messenger)

--Other countries like India and China pollute a lot too (aka Johnny down the street does it, why can't I?)

--Of the thousands of peer-reviewed scientific articles out there, one or two might disagree with the consensus (aka denial, or reaching)

--The earth can't be destroyed (aka missing the point - of course it can't, but it can do damage to us)

--Climate change has been happening for eons (this is a valid argument on its face, except that the climate (temp and CO2) changes up until recently are miniscule in comparison to the current ones)

 

Can anyone provide any sort of logical and/or scientific argument against the reality that human beings have heavily influenced changes in the atmosphere, and that we need to do something serious about it right now?

[EvilMonkey]

If you enjoy the standard of living you have now and do not want it to go lower, American cannot be the only country to institute, and keep, the steep cuts that the Goracle and his minions follow. The economy will suffer, wages will suffer, productivity will suffer. If you think we lose jobs at a fast pace now to China and India, just wait, because they will do nothing in the way of changes because it would be 'bad for business'. In your rush to dekapitate Kap, you all seemed to miss that point in his posts. Yes, we can do things. but if we are the only one, we will lose in every area to the countries that do nothing. China builds coal plants like they are Starbucks. Its not 'They pollute, why can't we", its "if we stop and they don't, they win".

[kapkomet]

If you enjoy the standard of living you have now and do not want it to go lower, American cannot be the only country to institute, and keep, the steep cuts that the Goracle and his minions follow. The economy will suffer, wages will suffer, productivity will suffer. If you think we lose jobs at a fast pace now to China and India, just wait, because they will do nothing in the way of changes because it would be 'bad for business'. In your rush to dekapitate Kap, you all seemed to miss that point in his posts. Yes, we can do things. but if we are the only one, we will lose in every area to the countries that do nothing. China builds coal plants like they are Starbucks. Its not 'They pollute, why can't we", its "if we stop and they don't, they win".

oooooooooh... groovy... "DEKAPITATE KAP!" I have a new group! Thanks!

[Balta1701]

So...a couple key "Developing world" type points.

 

1. In a significant number of the negotiations internationally regarding climate change, the key countries in the developing world often use U.S. objections to the projects as a reason why they don't have to do anything. If the biggest emmitter is refusing to do anything, why should they have to do anything, is the argument.

 

2. The U.S. economic power is key to giving the developing world a reason to participate in these agreements. If every country in the West other than the U.S. begins using its economic clout to try to convince people to limit their emissions, but the U.S. does not, then it is simply an empty threat. If you can market to the U.S., and you're a Chinese or Indian business, you can deal with some restrictions from a large part of Europe.

 

3. The cap-and-trade type system that would be the most likely to encourage the developing world to spend the money on cleaner technologies simply is not ever going to be strong enough or have enough money without U.S. participation. If U.S. businesses enter the market for Carbon Credits, then that is an awful lot of money available to encourage the developing world to expand in a much more carbon-neutral way. Without U.S. business, it's pretty much a Europe-only system.

[Texsox]

If you enjoy the standard of living you have now and do not want it to go lower, American cannot be the only country to institute, and keep, the steep cuts that the Goracle and his minions follow. The economy will suffer, wages will suffer, productivity will suffer. If you think we lose jobs at a fast pace now to China and India, just wait, because they will do nothing in the way of changes because it would be 'bad for business'. In your rush to dekapitate Kap, you all seemed to miss that point in his posts. Yes, we can do things. but if we are the only one, we will lose in every area to the countries that do nothing. China builds coal plants like they are Starbucks. Its not 'They pollute, why can't we", its "if we stop and they don't, they win".

 

That was the argument in the 1960s. However, we managed to clean up our environment to a tremendous degree and grow our economy. Scrubbers on coal plants would destroy the coal industry.

 

Gore makes a statement that the US is uniquely positioned as the world's leading super power. If someone disagrees with that, tell me who we should take a backseat to and follow? We must be leaders and set the agenda and that is also the best defense against your hypothesis of economic ruin.

[kapkomet]

Sure, we're uniquely positioned. Bend over, here comes the Goracle!

 

 

(This is too much fun.)

 

Some days, I wish I had more time, because I would actually take NS's challenge, but today's not the day. This MBA's killing me. It better be worth it.

[Texsox]

Sure, we're uniquely positioned. Bend over, here comes the Goracle!

 

 

(This is too much fun.)

 

Some days, I wish I had more time, because I would actually take NS's challenge, but today's not the day. This MBA's killing me. It better be worth it.

 

You know, it is far more difficult to find wisdom in someone you dislike, than someone you do. But often times the lessons are greater. We know you don't like Goracles and his preaching a cleaner environment. But as a nation we are chicken s*** to not accept our position as the world's leading super power and take leadership in global events. You want us to follow another country's lead and I will disagree. I don't like that view.

 

If not us, who? If not now, when?

[southsider2k5]

That was the argument in the 1960s. However, we managed to clean up our environment to a tremendous degree and grow our economy. Scrubbers on coal plants would destroy the coal industry.

 

Gore makes a statement that the US is uniquely positioned as the world's leading super power. If someone disagrees with that, tell me who we should take a backseat to and follow? We must be leaders and set the agenda and that is also the best defense against your hypothesis of economic ruin.

 

We sure did, and a excellent point you make. BTW, whatever happened to all of those manufacturing and heavy industry companies we cleaned up?

[FlaSoxxJim]

Seeing as how India and China are now darn close to the world's biggest polluters, THEY need to do something about it before we do, or at least at the same time.

 

Who's serving up the BS now, Kap? Even with more than 1 billion people each, China's total CO2 emissions are just over 1/2 what the US puts out, and India is at about 1/5 of our total.

 

http://www.carbonplanet.com/home/country_emissions.php

 

And on a per capita basis we blow them out of the water. In 2004 China put out about 3 tons of CO2 per person and India put out less than 1.5 tons. We on teh other hand, put out more than 24 tons per person. If you don't think that global solutions need to start with us on seeing those figures I don't know what else there is to say.

 

But more to the point. I do not believe Gore is suggesting that China and India continue to get a free ride in the global agreement that is to be Kyoto's successor. Please correct me if I'm wrong. What I have seen is Gore and others urge the US, China and everybody to enter a new accord by 20010 rather than 2012.

Edited March 21, 2007 by FlaSoxxJim

[Balta1701]

Who's serving up the BS now, Kap? Even with more than 1 billion people each, China's total CO2 emissions are just over 1/2 what the US puts out, and India is at about 1/5 of our total.

Fixed that for you.

[kapkomet]

Who's serving up the BS now, Kap? Even with more than 1 billion people each, China's total CO2 emissions are just over what the US puts out, and India is at about 1/5 of our total.

 

http://www.carbonplanet.com/home/country_emissions.php

 

And on a per capita basis we blow them out of the water. In 2004 China put out about 3 tons of CO2 per person and India put out less than 1.5 tons. We on teh other hand, put out more than 24 tons per person. If you don't think that global solutions need to start with us on seeing those figures I don't know what else there is to say.

 

But more to the point. I do not believe Gore is suggesting that China and India continue to get a free ride in the global agreement that is to be Kyoto's successor. Please correct me if I'm wrong. What I have seen is Gore and others urge the US, China and everybody to enter a new accord by 20010 rather than 2012.

And China is slated to add over 2,500 coal powered power plants in the next 3-5 years. By 2010, they will well exceed our CO2 emissions. And no, I don't have a fancy link for this, but I know I've read this even in the last two weeks.

 

A "per person" amount of CO2 is completely irrelevant.

 

The Goracle IS suggesting that China and India get breaks. Again, I don't have the link, but I know he's said it in the last month or so because of all the attention he's getting.

[Balta1701]

And China is slated to add over 2,500 coal powered power plants in the next 3-5 years. By 2010, they will well exceed our CO2 emissions. And no, I don't have a fancy link for this, but I know I've read this even in the last two weeks.

You are also correct.