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

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 04:25:13 PM EST
Tags: Al Gore, climate change (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

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 >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

TalkLeft's DMCA Infringement Notice Policy

Gore: No Formal Role in Next Administration, Will Keep His Focus on Climate Change | 39 comments (39 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Just think: Gore would be ending his second term (5.00 / 7) (#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.


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.


: 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.

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.


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.


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?


: 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.

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 (5.00 / 3) (#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.

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

Really happy to hear this. (5.00 / 2) (#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.

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.

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 / 1) (#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.


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.


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.


: 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.

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.....


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.


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.


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.

;)


: 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.

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

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.

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.


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.


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.


Unrelated, But Not Really (none / 0) (#33)
by squeaky on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 02:12:37 PM EST

Fire from a Can of Coke and a Chocolate Bar


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?


: I'll Say (none / 0) (#40)
by squeaky on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 05:27:09 PM EST

Ice fishing too...

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.


: 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?

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.


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.

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