home

Gore: No Formal Role in Next Administration, Will Keep His Focus on Climate Change

Al Gore's new project, We Can Solve the Climate Crisis.

“America must commit to producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and other clean sources within 10 years.”

On a related note, Gore said today at Netroots Nation he will not accept a formal role in the next President's Administration: [More...]

He said that the highest and best use of whatever talent and experience he has is “to focus on trying to enlarge the political space” within which politicians can address the climate crisis.

“I have seen first hand how important it is to have a base of support out in the country for the truly bold changes that have to be made now,” he said. That is why he is “devoting my life to bring about a sea change in public opinion that supports the truly massive changes.”

Go on over and check out the site.

More on Gore's comments here at the Denver Post.

(Note I edited the title to reflect what seems to be becoming the big story from Gore's appearance today -- that he won't officially serve in an Obama Administration.)

< Meta | Picking a Death Jury For Brian Nichols >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Just think: Gore would be ending his second term (5.00 / 8) (#1)
    by Angel on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 04:33:17 PM EST
    if the Supremes hadn't stopped the vote counting.  What a travesty that was.  

    actually, (none / 0) (#5)
    by bocajeff on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:27:26 PM EST
    Go to wiki and look up the article, but your statement may or may not be true depending upon the method of counting. Had Gore got his way he would have, ironically, lost. Had Bush had his way he would have, ironically lost.

    The newspaper consortium that conducting their own counting of all the ballots after the 2000 election basically came up with a different winner depending upon the method of counting.

    [ Parent ]

    The FL Supreme Court had ordered recounts of all (none / 0) (#8)
    by jawbone on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:54:12 PM EST
    votes, no? And in FL, Gore had to have good reason to request recounts, meaning he had to be able to, essentially, prove to the courts that a recount would result in a change in the outcome.
    My understanding is that he simply could not, initially, have demanded a full hand recount.

    [ Parent ]
    Sort of, (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by bocajeff on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 07:27:29 PM EST
    I was reminded again, after watching Recount on HBO that Gore could have demanded anything he wanted since the two options were that he was to be turned down or would have had his wishes granted. He chose, and his campaign later admitted that one of the biggest flaws in their strategy was going after only  Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach and Volusia Counties.

    The problem with politics in general is that it is rarely a matter of right or wrong, but a matter of winning. If the roles were reversed each side would take the others talking points with the same degree of sincerity.

    [ Parent ]

    Get real. This is nonsense. Everyone knows that (none / 0) (#12)
    by Angel on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:58:08 PM EST
    Gore won.  That's why the supremes stopped the counting.  

    Whether or not we agree on the votes, do you agree that the current administration has been a travesty?  Yes or no will suffice.  Thanks.

    [ Parent ]

    sidestepping the issue, (none / 0) (#16)
    by bocajeff on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 07:23:31 PM EST
    Whether this administration is a travesty or the best thing since the dawn of time is irrelevant to the facts.

    I live in Palm Beach County. I "accidentally" voted for Pat Buchanan. By 11:00 am that morning I knew something was amiss.

    But...that doesn't mean that the winner will never really be known (as a historical fact, not in real terms).

    So, having said that, read the results of the newspaper consortium's recount and you will see that it isn't nearly as one sided as you believe.

    [ Parent ]

    What I've read indicates that Gore won. Period. (none / 0) (#18)
    by Angel on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 07:31:50 PM EST
    There are all sorts of scenarios out there saying this and that about if such and such had been counted a certain way, etc., etc., but I honestly believe that Gore won.  

    But sidestepping that issue, do you or do you not agree that the current administration has been a travesty?

    [ Parent ]

    I read that by any form of COMPLETE recount (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by sallywally on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 10:07:15 PM EST
    imaginable, Gore would have won. (DUH, low information voter than I am, I can't recall the source).

    And Scalia said at the time that the statewide recount had to be stopped because the result might cast doubt on plaintiff's (Bush's) victory. I remember this so clearly because it seemed like a total admission that he was afraid the recount would show Gore won.

    So sad.

    [ Parent ]

    I guess that statement will end the nonsense (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by Teresa on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 04:36:13 PM EST
    from those silly people who think Gore would accept the VP position.

    My guess is (4.25 / 4) (#3)
    by weltec2 on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 04:53:51 PM EST
    that's partly why he made the statement and aslo to avoid the embarrassment of being asked and having to refuse. I cannot even imagine that he would want to tarnish his reputation with a BO Admin anyway. Remember: "Either lead, follow, or GTHOOTW"? He will accomplish far more on his own.

    [ Parent ]
    Gore will have much more (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by Anne on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 04:59:15 PM EST
    ability to hold the next president's feet to the fire from outside the administration than from the inside.

    Agree strongly. n/t (none / 0) (#10)
    by jawbone on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:56:43 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I venture to say that Bill Clinton and Al Gore (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Angel on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 06:02:08 PM EST
    are the two most important politicians of our time.  No question they are among the most intelligent.  In my mind they are untouchable.  

     

    Unless Gore starts living in a wind/solar-powered (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Dark Avenger on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 01:37:24 PM EST
    hovel, he'll always have nay-sayers like our hapless canine friend who only give one side of the story:

    Gore's spokeswoman Kalee Kreider countered the claim by stating that the Gores' "utility bills have gone down 40 percent since the green retrofit." and that "the three-year renovation on the home wasn't complete until November, so it's a bit early to attempt a before-and-after comparison." [187] She also noted that TCPR did not include Gore's gas bill in their analysis (which they had done the previous year) and that the gas "bill has gone down 90 percent [...] And when the Gores do power up, they pay for renewable resources, like wind and solar power or methane gas."

    From Media Matters:

    As the Tennessean further noted, "[T]he Gores participate in the Nashville Electric Service's Green Power Switch program, which allows them to buy their electricity from renewable sources like wind power, solar power or methane gas." According to the Tennessee Valley Authority, which partners with the Nashville Electric Service and other local energy distributors to provide green power, "[a]lthough no source of energy is impact-free, renewable resources create less waste and pollution."


    He Could Move In (none / 0) (#34)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 02:16:29 PM EST
    To this house.

    A New Jersey civil engineer powers his home with solar panels and hydrogen tanks. Can it work in the mainstream?

    HIS ENERGY BILL IS $0.00




    [ Parent ]
    Really happy to hear this. (4.00 / 3) (#6)
    by jen on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:46:36 PM EST
    I don't want anyone I respect or care about anywhere near Obama. I believe he is going to implode sooner or later and I don't want him to take all the good Dems with him. I hope Clark and Hillary come out with similar statements.

    his statement was absurd... (3.00 / 1) (#7)
    by john b on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:51:25 PM EST
    ...not because we can't do it, but because following his recommendations would destroy our economy.  I hope for his sake he says these things in the hope that his speeches drag our country's energy policy to the left, and not because he actually believes that his rec's are good ideas.  

    And we're doing so well doing nothing??? (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by jawbone on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:55:58 PM EST
    I agree with him that by having a set time, a manageable timeframe, we could do a lot--if we would knuckle down to doing it.

    [ Parent ]
    no, but doing something.... (none / 0) (#11)
    by john b on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:57:54 PM EST
    ...isn't better than doing nothing when that something will destroy the economy, as a general rule.  

    [ Parent ]
    So, how's your economy? (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Fabian on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 06:11:45 PM EST
    There's two ways to get ahead in the energy economy.

    A) Be the tech and innovation leader, and sell your ideas to the rest of the world.

    B) Don't be cutting edge, but be able to cash in by being able to produce the technology more cheaply than anyone else.  

    I prefer option A to option B.  We can't underbid China.  We can win the tech race, which is not only about our economy, but our future as well.  And the future of the billions of people who may/will be effected by Climate Change.

    [ Parent ]

    The current housing/credit (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Fabian on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 06:17:40 PM EST
    crisis came about because our leaders tried to literally "build" our way out of a weak economy.  Pumping easy credit into the economy wouldn't have been such a bad thing if we'd have built energy tech with the money instead of houses that people couldn't afford.  The easy credit(and a few other things) kept them buying and it kept the builders building.

    Then the whole thing collapsed because it was simply unsustainable.  Kind of like the efforts in Iran and Afghanistan.  People worry so much about them.  Sillies.  We'll have to bring the troops home because we can't afford to keep paying for them.

    [ Parent ]

    So how did you feel about the Iraq war (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by sallywally on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 10:11:35 PM EST
    back in 2002-03?

    We probably could have done this for less than that has cost us so far.....

    [ Parent ]

    It wouldn't destroy the ecomony ... (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 08:04:55 AM EST
    that's just something people say who are benefiting from the status quo.

    [ Parent ]
    ahhh...arguments about "privilage"... (none / 0) (#35)
    by john b on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 02:36:19 PM EST
    ...almost makes me miss my college days.  We are all benefiting from the status quo, if your definition of status quo is using oil.  When the economy tanks, poor people suffer first.  You aren't helping anyone by claiming that only rich people want us to remain dependent on oil.  

    [ Parent ]
    This has nothing to do with ... (none / 0) (#38)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 05:24:10 PM EST
    what I was saying.  But I'm glad I made you recall your college days.

    College was fun.

    ;)

    [ Parent ]

    i'm sorry if I misunderstood you, (none / 0) (#41)
    by john b on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 06:19:41 PM EST
    I don't think I got your original meaning in that case.

    [ Parent ]
    In Other News (none / 0) (#19)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 07:35:01 PM EST
    Not unrelated:

    WARREN -- U.S. Sen. John McCain backtracked Friday on a pledge to set national auto emissions standards that would supersede those California and other states want to set.
    "I guess at the end of the day, I support the states being able to do that," he said at a town hall meeting at the GM Technical Center.
    The statement appears to contradict a statement McCain made to The Detroit News last month, when he said he hoped to set a national standard that would make state standards unnecessary
    .

    link

    Does this mean he knows (none / 0) (#20)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 09:25:23 PM EST
    there will be no effort by the government to control the environment no matter which candidate wins? Wouldn't he be able to get more done inside the government - especially if he endorsed the man who eventually wins?


    Yikes! (none / 0) (#23)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 11:36:43 PM EST
    "America must commit to producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and other clean sources within 10 years."

    Destruction of the coal mining industry and a lower standard of living for the average person.  The guy is a crackpot.

    Signature Song

    As opposed to....? (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Fabian on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:14:42 AM EST
    Your brilliant plan please?

    The problem is that what we are doing is literally unsustainable in the long run.  We are essentially running on a global energy bubble economy.  As with all bubbles, there's the hard landing and the soft landing.  Drilling and mining faster and furiouser is just inflating the bubble and contributing to Global Warming.

    We'll have to move off of fossil fuels sooner or later, and there is a competitive advantage to doign it sooner.  As in, we won't be scr3wed as badly as the other poor slobs when the skyrocketing cost of fossil fuels trashes their economies.  Plus the whole array Climate Change effects, but that's always a harder sell.  Pocketbook issues are easier to understand.

    [ Parent ]

    Right (none / 0) (#29)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 01:22:59 PM EST
    The problem is that what we are doing is literally unsustainable in the long run.

    Correct.  That means that quickie short run solutions are not needed.  

    While it is true that we may need to switch to higher cost energy in coming centuries, that is no reason to atrifically impose a lower standard of living now.

    Signature Song
    [ Parent ]

    One more thing (none / 0) (#30)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 01:27:10 PM EST

    We'll have to move off of fossil fuels sooner or later, and there is a competitive advantage to doign it sooner.

    There is advantage only when the alternative is less costly.  There is a competitive advantage to using the lowest cost energy.  There is no advantage to changing to a higher cost alternative.

    Signature Song
    [ Parent ]

    The competitive advantage (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Dark Avenger on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 01:56:34 PM EST
    of getting weaned from fossil fuels before the cost of them inevitably increases,(which isn't true of renewable sources) seems obvious to me, but I'm merely a lowly tribesman, not a grand leader.

    From the Wikipedia:

    High concentration CPV

    These systems have concentrating optics consisting of dish reflectors or fresnel lenses that concentrate sunlight to intensities of 200 suns or more. The solar cells require high-capacity heat sinks to avoid thermal destruction, and to manage temperature related performance losses. Multijunction solar cells are currently favored over silicon, as they have a higher efficiency. The efficiency of both cell types rises with increased concentration; the multijunction efficiency also rises faster. Multijunction solar cells, originally designed for non-concentrating space-based satellites, have been re-designed due to the high current density encountered in CPV (typically 8 A/cm2 at 500 suns). Though the cost of multijunction solar cells is roughly 100x that of a comparable silicon cell, the cell cost remains a small fraction of the cost of the overall concentrating PV system, so the system economics may still favor the multijunction cells.

    Much of the original research into multijunction photovoltaics was sponsored by governments and the astronautics industry. More recently, the technical research and product development of CPV systems has grown due to investment in terrestrial electric generating systems. Recent technological advances in triple-junction solar cells by Spectrolab have yielded 40.7% conversion efficiency.[5]

    In May 2008, IBM demonstrated a prototype CPV using computer chip cooling techniques to achieve an energy density of 2300 suns.[6]

    United States

    As utilities scramble to meet California's 20 percent renewable-energy target by 2010, Southern California Edison has signed the latest solar-thermal agreement with eSolar. [7]



    [ Parent ]
    Unrelated, But Not Really (none / 0) (#33)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 02:12:37 PM EST
    I have a friend (none / 0) (#36)
    by Dark Avenger on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 03:20:34 PM EST
    who has a friend who's a bit of an inventor, using aluminized Mylar and a vacumn cleaner, he came up with a solar-powered concentrator that he used to set trees on fire with little difficulty.

    [ Parent ]
    Wow (none / 0) (#37)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 03:33:42 PM EST
    That is one way to clear land. Any inventions to put the fire out?

    [ Parent ]
    Not that I know of (none / 0) (#39)
    by Dark Avenger on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 05:25:56 PM EST
    but it would be useful as a way to boil water, start a campfire, etc. when you're out in the middle of nowhere.

    [ Parent ]
    I'll Say (none / 0) (#40)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 05:27:09 PM EST
    Ice fishing too...

    [ Parent ]
    Timing (none / 0) (#42)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:49:00 AM EST

    ...getting weaned from fossil fuels before the cost of them inevitably increases,(which isn't true of renewable sources) seems obvious to me,...

    Right.  But doing it 100 years before that makes no sense at all.

    Signature Song
    [ Parent ]

    In case you haven't noticed (none / 0) (#43)
    by Dark Avenger on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 09:42:06 AM EST
    the price of fossil fuels has been going up already, so talking about a 100-year time frame before the 'cost increases' necessitate switching over is unrealistic at best or sheer unrealistic thinking at worse.

    [ Parent ]
    Oil prices (none / 0) (#44)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 11:50:29 AM EST

    Oil prices prices have a boom and bust history.  So the trend of the last few years may continue and it may not.  People thought that housing prices could only go up.

    There is no evidence to believe that wind and alternatives will be cheaper in the next decade or perhaps in this century.  There is no indication at all that coal will be more costly than wind/solar at all.  

    Remember, the reason they are "alternative" is they cost more.  Switching now because a source of power may become cheaper in the future is a prescription for a lower standard of living for everyone.  Waiting until the costs are closer would be more prudent.  

    Who would willingly pay, say double or more the cost of electricity by coal to use wind?

    Signature Song
    [ Parent ]

    Housing prices are quite an abstract (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Dark Avenger on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 04:23:43 PM EST
    thing to compare to the price of a commodity that is essential to our way of life.

    Oil prices prices have a boom and bust history.

    Which is one of the advantages of using a renewable resource, it's not subject to the whims of the market.

    There is no evidence to believe that wind and alternatives will be cheaper in the next decade or perhaps in this century.  There is no indication at all that coal will be more costly than wind/solar at all.

    From the Wikipedia:

    Investment capital flowing into renewable energy climbed from $80 billion in 2005 to a record $100 billion in 2006.[14] This level of investment combined with continuing double digit percentage increases each year has moved what once was considered alternative energy to mainstream. Wind was the first to provide 1% of electricity, but solar is not far behind.[15] Some very large corporations such as BP, General Electric, Sharp, and Royal Dutch Shell are investing in the renewable energy sector.[16][17]

    Googling wind Kwh per hour cost yielded this:

    From 2000 to 2004, wind energy was one of the fastest-growing energy technologies worldwide, growing at a 30% rate to a total installed capacity of more than 46,000 megawatts at the beginning of 2005. The size of the annual worldwide wind energy market is $1.5 billion. The largest share of new wind capacity -- 73% -- was installed in Europe. Spain, where wind power currently provides about 5% of the nation's power, promises to be one of the strongest markets in the next 10 years. Germany has now surpassed the United States, once the world leader, in installed wind energy capacity with more than 16,000 megawatts (MW).

    In the United States, wind energy growth slowed during the past several years, a result of uncertainties about deregulation and competition in the electric power industry. Total U.S. installed wind capacity at the end of 2004 was around 6,700 MW, with more than 2,000 MW installed in the last two years. This is enough energy to serve more than 1.6 million average households. Much of the recent growth in the United States was fueled by new State Renewable Portfolio Standards.

    Competition in the electric industry means low-cost generation is important. Wind energy, however, offers other competitive advantages: it is clean, renewable, and preferred by some consumers. And as concerns about global climate change grow, wind energy will take a more prominent place among generation technologies. The electric industry remains the largest, single stationary source of air pollution.

    Markets for off-grid systems are also strong. More than 2 billion people around the world live without electricity. Small wind turbines, coupled with other technology, such as diesel generators, photovoltaics, and batteries (collectively called hybrid systems), can provide power for remote villages. According to the World Bank, several million households worldwide are able and willing to spend $150 per year for reliable energy.

    Switching now because a source of power may become cheaper in the future is a prescription for a lower standard of living for everyone.

    Wind energy is one of the most
    cost-competitive renewable energy technologies. Thanks to the efforts of the wind industry and the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Wind Energy Program, the cost of electricity from wind has dropped from $0.35 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) in 1980 to less than $0.05 per kWh today at good wind sites. DOE's goal is to improve the technology to further reduce costs to $0.03 per kWh for projects at low wind speed sites and $0.05 per kWh for offshore sites by 2012.

    I rest my case

    [ Parent ]

    Sooo... (none / 0) (#24)
    by weltec2 on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 01:28:38 AM EST
    you thought we were going to be able to continue coal mining forever? But even if we could continue to rip the tops of mountains off and dig holes in the earth as we are doing now, there are still 4000 new cases of Black Lung disease in the US alone every year besides the fact that it is one of the most dangerous jobs in the country. I would not be sorry to see it disappear.

    [ Parent ]
    Al Gore, hypocrite (none / 0) (#25)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 05:41:21 AM EST
    Al Gore's Personal Electricity Consumption Up 10% Despite "Energy-Efficient" Renovations
    Energy guzzled by Al Gore's home in past year could power 232 U.S. homes for a month


    Listen to what he says, not what he does.  

    It is not a crisis until those saying it is a crisis start acting like it is.

    Thanks for the new talking point (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Fabian on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:08:29 AM EST
    I do like to keep up with the latest ones.

    [ Parent ]